Low-cost, muti-role aircraft for small militaries
- Thread starter Miragedriver
- Start date
Kurt
Junior Member
Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?
Guys calm down, we are talking about Argentinia's choice for a new fighter (I even have kin in that country who will be old enough for the draft).
There are two camps, the get the Falklands camp upheld by i.e. and the forget the Falklands camp including, me, asif iqbal and Pointblank.
@IE it's not impossible to invade and conquer the islands, but when will UK concede defeat and cease legal claims to these islands? Whatever the current situation, UK will be capable to field major expeditionary forces in any future, including two aircraft carriers. The public relations aspect of the last war over these islands made it clear that from a UK point of view, they are now as much motherland as the Shetlands and the last pride of a former empire. It sounds more promising to me if the Argentinians try to buy Downing Street Number 10 to erect a Malvinas memorial - it's not entirely impossible if the cats decide it's enough (this says a lot about British attitude!).
The Argentinian considerations for a new fighter can consider requirements to carry out useful tasks during ongoing disputes that can turn violent with Chile and UK over territory claims around Cape Horn. Cape Horn is one of the most violent seas bordering to the harsh lands of Patagonia, Tierra del Fuego and the Andes mountains that require climate and terrain trained troops to carry out demanding missions and be useful in warfare. Aircrafts operating there share many requirements with Canada, Sweden, Norway and Russia. The major problem is not having a capable aircraft, but having a capable system with none too weak component, including the fighter. This relies heavily on giving the fighters direction and timing by superior intelligence in order to win aerial combat.
A major amphibious assault is one of the most dangerous modern naval missions. It gives the enemy lots of easy to obtain information about difficult to defend high value targets that won't change anytime soon. The advantage of such an assault are logistics. Ships have been and are (and likely will be) the most important transport vehicles humans have invented. If there's less requirement for deploying logistics by unloading the big ships on the beach, targeting solutions become a lot more difficult to obtain.
In order to make any land based fighter capable of a serious sting concerning these islands, it does require a top of the art intelligence complex with surveillance aircrafts and major aerial refuelling investments that both can survive a cunning high-tech enemy with more or less hidden support by other high-tech nations. It's a daunting challenge future Argentinian generations can try to master, but it takes more than bravery, flight skills and expensive fighters. The fighters are the least demanding part of the whole complex.
Guys calm down, we are talking about Argentinia's choice for a new fighter (I even have kin in that country who will be old enough for the draft).
There are two camps, the get the Falklands camp upheld by i.e. and the forget the Falklands camp including, me, asif iqbal and Pointblank.
@IE it's not impossible to invade and conquer the islands, but when will UK concede defeat and cease legal claims to these islands? Whatever the current situation, UK will be capable to field major expeditionary forces in any future, including two aircraft carriers. The public relations aspect of the last war over these islands made it clear that from a UK point of view, they are now as much motherland as the Shetlands and the last pride of a former empire. It sounds more promising to me if the Argentinians try to buy Downing Street Number 10 to erect a Malvinas memorial - it's not entirely impossible if the cats decide it's enough (this says a lot about British attitude!).
The Argentinian considerations for a new fighter can consider requirements to carry out useful tasks during ongoing disputes that can turn violent with Chile and UK over territory claims around Cape Horn. Cape Horn is one of the most violent seas bordering to the harsh lands of Patagonia, Tierra del Fuego and the Andes mountains that require climate and terrain trained troops to carry out demanding missions and be useful in warfare. Aircrafts operating there share many requirements with Canada, Sweden, Norway and Russia. The major problem is not having a capable aircraft, but having a capable system with none too weak component, including the fighter. This relies heavily on giving the fighters direction and timing by superior intelligence in order to win aerial combat.
A major amphibious assault is one of the most dangerous modern naval missions. It gives the enemy lots of easy to obtain information about difficult to defend high value targets that won't change anytime soon. The advantage of such an assault are logistics. Ships have been and are (and likely will be) the most important transport vehicles humans have invented. If there's less requirement for deploying logistics by unloading the big ships on the beach, targeting solutions become a lot more difficult to obtain.
In order to make any land based fighter capable of a serious sting concerning these islands, it does require a top of the art intelligence complex with surveillance aircrafts and major aerial refuelling investments that both can survive a cunning high-tech enemy with more or less hidden support by other high-tech nations. It's a daunting challenge future Argentinian generations can try to master, but it takes more than bravery, flight skills and expensive fighters. The fighters are the least demanding part of the whole complex.
Last edited:
Miragedriver
Brigadier
Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?
Wow I guess that this is what happens when I get away for a few weeks. The site was a beehive of replies.
I all honest discussion I have always tried to steer the conversation away from any Argentina United Kingdom conflict. These are two nations that should never have gone to war. With the exception of the dispute over the islands thy have always had close ties and cooperation. Many well to do Argentines have been educated in the UK, or America and appreciate the privileges offered there. Too bad we cannot provide that for our citizens now.
Anyhow, the topic for this forum was to discuss the possibilities of replacement aircraft for the Argentine Air Force, which is currently operating 30+ modernized A-4M (now called A-4AR) and 30+ Mirage III, Neshers and Mirage V. The Mirage III are a mix of the original Mirage IIEA purchased in the mid seventies and some Mirage IIIEJ purchased from Israel (these have already been through two wars before Argentina purchased them); The Neshers were also purchased from Israel in 1978 and 1980; and the Mirage V were a gift from Peru during the war to replenish loses. These aircraft are old, falling apart and have little to no military value. They are also a threat to the safety of the pilot.
The main threat to Argentina and possible future war is over the claims to the Antarctic (as Kurt very eloquently put it. He was right on the nose with his analysis). The main antagonist in this situation is (and always has been) Chile. There are not only overlapping claims in the Antarctica, but also they have always coveted Tierra del Fuego and the provinces of Patagonia and Santa Cruz (there’s oil in these plains and off the coast). A fear that Argentina has is that a conflict with Chile could escalate into one, which includes, the UK as a supporting member to Chile. Since Chiles and the UK's claim overlap Argentina’s claim in the Antarctic, and since Chile has already collaborated once before with the UK during the war.
The current situation is that Chile has not only purchased 10 new F-16C/D from the US, but also 36 used F-16MLU from the Netherlands. Chile also operates 16 F-5 Tiger III (Israeli upgraded avionic, Derby missile, etc). Just the F-5 Tiger IIIs are enough to deal with the 30 ancient Mirages. The F-16’s would decimate the entire Air Force with little effort. The other side of the coin is that Chile being narrow and long, could easily be attacked. The runways could (or as Woody Allen would say “a definite maybe”) and taken out of service. So basically you are at a first strike scenario, and however attacked fist would have a strategic advantage, with Chile have better olds.
So the Question again is posed. What replacement combat aircraft do any of you see as for a nation with the following strategic situation, and that prefers to spend $US600 million per year to broadcast free soccer games for the poor that to defend the air space?
Thank you all for you wonderful comments and suggestions!
Wow I guess that this is what happens when I get away for a few weeks. The site was a beehive of replies.
I all honest discussion I have always tried to steer the conversation away from any Argentina United Kingdom conflict. These are two nations that should never have gone to war. With the exception of the dispute over the islands thy have always had close ties and cooperation. Many well to do Argentines have been educated in the UK, or America and appreciate the privileges offered there. Too bad we cannot provide that for our citizens now.
Anyhow, the topic for this forum was to discuss the possibilities of replacement aircraft for the Argentine Air Force, which is currently operating 30+ modernized A-4M (now called A-4AR) and 30+ Mirage III, Neshers and Mirage V. The Mirage III are a mix of the original Mirage IIEA purchased in the mid seventies and some Mirage IIIEJ purchased from Israel (these have already been through two wars before Argentina purchased them); The Neshers were also purchased from Israel in 1978 and 1980; and the Mirage V were a gift from Peru during the war to replenish loses. These aircraft are old, falling apart and have little to no military value. They are also a threat to the safety of the pilot.
The main threat to Argentina and possible future war is over the claims to the Antarctic (as Kurt very eloquently put it. He was right on the nose with his analysis). The main antagonist in this situation is (and always has been) Chile. There are not only overlapping claims in the Antarctica, but also they have always coveted Tierra del Fuego and the provinces of Patagonia and Santa Cruz (there’s oil in these plains and off the coast). A fear that Argentina has is that a conflict with Chile could escalate into one, which includes, the UK as a supporting member to Chile. Since Chiles and the UK's claim overlap Argentina’s claim in the Antarctic, and since Chile has already collaborated once before with the UK during the war.
The current situation is that Chile has not only purchased 10 new F-16C/D from the US, but also 36 used F-16MLU from the Netherlands. Chile also operates 16 F-5 Tiger III (Israeli upgraded avionic, Derby missile, etc). Just the F-5 Tiger IIIs are enough to deal with the 30 ancient Mirages. The F-16’s would decimate the entire Air Force with little effort. The other side of the coin is that Chile being narrow and long, could easily be attacked. The runways could (or as Woody Allen would say “a definite maybe”) and taken out of service. So basically you are at a first strike scenario, and however attacked fist would have a strategic advantage, with Chile have better olds.
So the Question again is posed. What replacement combat aircraft do any of you see as for a nation with the following strategic situation, and that prefers to spend $US600 million per year to broadcast free soccer games for the poor that to defend the air space?
Thank you all for you wonderful comments and suggestions!
Last edited:
Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?
L-15 Hongdu trainer/attacker. you get a trainer which can be convert to attacker/fighter if neccessary and will not burn a hole in your pocket.
L-15 Hongdu trainer/attacker. you get a trainer which can be convert to attacker/fighter if neccessary and will not burn a hole in your pocket.
Miragedriver
Brigadier
Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?
I can see the L-15 being a good replacement for the A-4, however I can't see it being competative against an F-16. It would have to be a J-10. Perhaps a high low mix utilzing either J-10s and SU-27, or FC-1 and Mig-29 (for the sake of common engines).
I can see the L-15 being a good replacement for the A-4, however I can't see it being competative against an F-16. It would have to be a J-10. Perhaps a high low mix utilzing either J-10s and SU-27, or FC-1 and Mig-29 (for the sake of common engines).
Last edited:
Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?
Not necessary. Of course everybody is happy to get a fighter jet that can take on F-16. Do Argentina Airforce has the money in the first place? If no money, it useless to talk about getting a fighter that can take on F-16. L-15 is not completely hopeless in its case. It needs to maximise its advantage to its advantage.
From the spec, L-15 is actually quite decent. A good to thrust to weight ratio and great angle of attack. It is not very short legged. And it actually will save plenty of Argentina budget and work if you decide to stick with this plane. You save money on extra trainer and conversion of new pilot into L-15 will be fairly easy with dual seat already available unlike FC-1.
Not necessary. Of course everybody is happy to get a fighter jet that can take on F-16. Do Argentina Airforce has the money in the first place? If no money, it useless to talk about getting a fighter that can take on F-16. L-15 is not completely hopeless in its case. It needs to maximise its advantage to its advantage.
From the spec, L-15 is actually quite decent. A good to thrust to weight ratio and great angle of attack. It is not very short legged. And it actually will save plenty of Argentina budget and work if you decide to stick with this plane. You save money on extra trainer and conversion of new pilot into L-15 will be fairly easy with dual seat already available unlike FC-1.
Kurt
Junior Member
Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?
In case of a first strike scenario, you need aerial surveillance, air defense and something that can carry out attacks on enemy airfields under any conditions.
Argentina has enough depth to stomach some enemy incursions with further away airfields and aerial refuelling. Buenos Aires not really within bombing range, unlike Santiago. With good surveillance you can avoid fighter on fighter combat wvr and carry out bombing missions on airfields and bvr engagements with missiles and surveillance counting most. Involvement of the UK in the conflict makes it likely that the US won't be on Argentina's side. I would opt for a carrier capable aircraft with a fully integrated electronics suit from Israel, including the AWACS, and some UAV from Israel that are capable of surveillance, bombing and electronic warfare.
The carrier capable aircraft is for economic reasons because Argentina has a small air force and wants to have a carrier. You can solve that problem by having part of the airforce in carrier capable aircrafts and part of it in a similar non-carrier version with many shared components (some will cry F-35 now, but I'd rather have a normal and a Sea Raptor). Rafale, MiG-29K/M and Su-33/27 Flanker come to my mind. You could join the Russo-Indian PAK FA/HAL FGFA development to get one of the most inexpensive to purchase 5th generation fighters (no comment on maintenance costs) with intent of naval versions. China is just getting started with the whole carrier issues, but the J-15 seems like a carrier based fighter and Argnetina might have a different vibe with Russia for good engines.
Opting for bvr and bombing with AWAC reliance makes kinematic issues paramount. These are speed and height. Going for height in bombing means that there's no solution better than a high altitude drone that reaches into the thin air regions of the U2. This UAV solution to bombing problems might best be researched with Israel because it provides a lot of other advantages in information collection. I would combine it with communication to a lower flying data processing AWAC aircraft. You also reduce the bomber demand on manned aircrafts this way and can go more for a fighter with bvr due to the system integration and wvr due to flight characteristics. The fighter and wvr characteristics are important to keep the Chileans not trigger happy about starting a conflict. The Rafale is as French as the Exochet. It's good against Chile, but won't make a dent against a UK support that is threatened any time by the Chile-UK common interests disputed by Argentina.
So we are left with the Russian products and possibly some Chinese if their carrier operations move along. MiG-29K/M, Su-33/27 and PAK FA/HAL FGFA are in the race. It's my opinion that Sukhoi is the better design bureau and MiG needs subsidies to survive. Ordering a MiG would leave you with higher costs as the design is not produced in as high numbers as the modern Sukhois. The numerous Sukhoi exports make it more likely to acquire some components from other countries than Russia.
Both the Su-33/27 Flankers as well as the PAK FA/HAL FGFA are options. The fashion in Latin America is for buying cheap second hand fighters, but I would try to get my hands on the PAK FA/HAL FGFA if Israeli upgrades on avionics and networking are possible. The avionics in the HAL FGFA are Indian and they do have a longstanding tradition of cooperation with Israel, making the Sukhoi HAL FGFA the most promising choice. Israeli input is needed especially for state of the art fried-foe recognition networked(!) with the aerial surveilance and defence aid systems.
The Su-33/27 Flanker is a cheaper option that can be obtained second hand, especially the Su-33 from Admiral Kuznetsov. It can be networked with Israeli avionics for processing surveillance data and friend-foe distinction and has a whole family line of 4++ evolutions available for upgrades.
Drones can serve three purposes, surveillance, electronic warfare and bombing. Integrating the fighters in an information network with drones will give the most benefits by being able to precisely bomb from a safe distance with on spot drone surveillance, to cover all tracks with drone electronic warfare and to take out important components of the enemy system with very risky bombing campaigns. The high altitude helps in all of these cases as drones don't have the maneuverability of fighters and should reliably cover a large region while communicating with far away friendlies. Adding drones to the costs of the mix can enhance effectiveness at lower aircraft costs (and capabilities) by superior intelligence - the whole network issue. Better safe some money on the fighters and spent it on their network.
Artillery can play an important role for aircraft operations, especially if it has very long range, can operate in the mountains and be deployed quickly by air (possibly disassembled). The border is very long - providing a low force density. GC-45 howitzer long range artillery offsprings, such as the Indian T-5 and T-6 designs, could bit by bit move the area for airfields back by their circumference for destructive fire. They will have extra range in these mountains because of the low air density and the height differences between areas where artillery can deploy and where space for airfields exists. I would roughly count a 50km radius for this artillery, giving it a 100 kilometers diameter. In combination with a gun on Argentine soil it reaches an interdiction depth of 150km. This can help to get a bit more of a buffer zone in certain regions and Chile is only about 500km deep, so taking out 150km of the mountain regions for permanent installations in certain places reduced their depth by 30%.
Add to this a safety margin of 100 km because any such strike would devastate the small air forces of both countries, then half the unrefueled sortie radius is over homeland and only 250km unrefueled penetration into the enemy country. The artillery will likely not accomplish the task all by itself. Cicaré CH-14 and and air dropped commandos would cooperate.
The artillery deployment has only a cutting edge advantage in the thin air high altitude regions of the mutual border and can thus provide support from a radius that will cover an area too large to reliably search for (area increase with the square of the radius). Down in the lower regions, artillery radius gets diminished, rendering it an unlikely candidate.
Other than artillery, China would be among the first nations to ask for missiles to take out enemy airfields. A few of them should be enough to threaten Chile into concentrating defence of their most capable fighter aircrafts in one location or face staggering costs of missile defence, the more dispersal they have. Concentration combined with Chile's geography would turn much of any armed conflict free of fighter and air defence interference, making a Tucano sufficient to carry out airstrikes. But we would possibly see some turboprop clashes and dogfights that taste like a comeback of an old era.
Chile will have to heavily depend on naval supply routes because the aforementioned Tucano and the Pucará can threaten their whole land based supplies, but these turboprops will need mobile chokepoints with day and night surveillance - by drones and airborne ground forces with remote controlled IED.
To hamper their fighters, especially in regions with low population density and correspondingly suspicious traffic on land, you need to endanger the sea routes. An Argentine aircraft carrier could accomplish that by establishing an airfield west of Chile in the disputed south. This carrier needs self-defense fighters and surveillance aircrafts to direct surface and subsurface assets (with additional naval mine laying). The Chilean coast will still be a tough nut to crack and you have to choose whether or not you shoot boats. The carrier and the corresponding airwing will be more in the range of a sea control design with a sea interdiction mission. The nearby land bases allow more carrier capable fighters to use the carrier as a relay station, highlighted below, in conflicts with Chile as well as with the UK, giving a small carrier near friendly shores a cutting edge advantage.
In both conflicts, with Chile and the UK, the most cost effective approach to interfere with their logistics would be SSK with guided missiles and data links to surveillance aircrafts (mostly unmanned and they can be quite cheap and numerous or few and high altitude). Australia shows the way, combining blue water SSK with guided missiles and mini-subs that should carry some armament in my opinion and be suited to deploy a small group of special forces, mostly to act as scouts. While SSK are not directly related with fighters, they do interfere with the logistics and fighters are very dependent on logistics. If enough insecurity for supplies is provided and stocks are running low, even the best fighters must ration their sorties while non-competitive fighters with good logistics can fly a lot more to carry out missions.
This makes the fighter problem related to the submarine procurement and capability. It's usually cheaper to rely more on submarines than on fighters and I guess Argentina will also take that route with cheaper fighters and more money for the subs.
As to the aircraft carrier question. The US(partly), Brazilian, UK and French carriers are heavily into bomber missions (others are into Harriers as a kind of helicopter/STOL, or in a swing state) and not into fighters on carriers such as the Russian approach (they botched it with the Yak, but that was the original idea). The Soviet aircraft carrying cruiser idea was not a bad concept overall, but the ongoing Russian trials still have a lot of work to do. The big difference was the intent to station more capable fighters on board, while having fewer numbers of fixed wings as the enemy. This was to be compensated by supremcy in aerial combat and by diverting the bombing mission to big bad missiles meant to take out high value targets in fleet engagements. It would have been ill suited to bomb Iraq into submission. However, you don't need to station missiles on the carrier as long as they are in the fleet. The carrier is the best tool to operate many flying assets with economies of scale instead of having a repair shop on each ship for one or two rotary wings. Most important will be the carrier based AWACS and UAV for, information dominance in NATO-slang, let's say non-inferior information flow.
Opting for the Russian fighter concept can help a lot to fend off superior numbers of carrier based "bombers". France, Russia, China or India will likely be very important partners for the next Argentine carrier that is most certain to come. Having additional numbers of interchangeable naval aircrafts based on land that can use the carrier as a relay station will increase strikes by flying much more aircrafts from the deck of the carrier than could fit in the hangar. It would be the closest Argentina can come to naval based air dominance in the South Atlantic waters. This solution can both fight Chile over the route and lands around Cape Horn and in the Antarctic, as well as pose a serious deterrence to the UK with some(=the best) chances of winning an armed clash. Furthermore it sets the route for an affordable STOBAR design as the other option would be an expensive catapult or the Harrier/F-35, both very bad ideas if the UK is possibly the enemy. STOBAR is not the most perfect system, but the Argentine pilots still maintain their training to handle the catch wires and had to experience how aircraft carriers become inoperational, including unrepairable catapult failure (Brazil and Argentina then helped each other to create one working carrier out of two dysfunctional ones). Low tech would be safe tech and use as a relay station for land based carrier aircrafts would take out much of the low weight take off problems. Bombers take off on land, fly to the target, drop weapons and return to the carrier to operate as fighters, possibly switch pilots, or refuel to return to their base on land. Aerial refuelling can not compete with carrier refuelling. The fighters on the carrier act as light bombers, electronic warfare platforms and escort fighters. But the most important part will be the extended range of intelligence gathering manned and unmanned assets and the rotary wings exercising sea control under fighter cover. It's a kind of mobile naval bastion concept because the area of conflict can be precisely limited to a region controllable by such a set-up and in this naval bastion in home waters you want to move supplies and bombers back and forth against enemy interference.
If you build a carrier for these fighters, mind that size is cheap and numbers are expensive, so the old Kuznetsov or an Indian/Chinese custom design that does include multipurpose space for amphibian ground forces as well, might best serve all requirements (Cavour). Here again, the carrier is more of a relay station between friendly shore and object in order to insert fresh and supplied troops into any area of conflict under all conditions (with a Zubr or a fast ferry catamaran). Having the capability to insert and supply troops, makes it more likely that a land base for aircrafts can be erected and maintained, giving access to more capable aircrafts to carry out more missions.
A very important consideration if fighting around Cape Horn is the sea state. It's the region renown for having on average the highest sea state and for this reason Cape Horner is still an exclusive club. With this in mind, Argentina is well advised to optimize aircrafts and carriers for take offs at higher sea states than any possible opponent because there will be plenty of no fly days for such a concept to create an advantage. Heavy aircrafts are especially suited for this task, whether they fly from land or from sea. The Russian carrier operates in a similar rough environment. While I would favour heavy under such conditions, they seem to have a reason for introducing the smaller naval MiG that India also favours (more aircrafts per ship).
China's J-15 is a naval Flanker derivate and a Flanker of Russian or Chinese origin might best suit the mission. It is a widespread design optimized for that purpose and the size is a bonus, while a carrier operating as a relay with nearby land bases does not require that much storage for aircrafts on board as a carrier that on its own travels with an airwing to far away places. You can combine the relay idea with some aerial refuelling that is away from the combat zone in between land base and the carrier which functions as the most forward deployed defended airfield.
My winner is the Su-33/27 Flanker family (and all offsprings and components of 4++ generation from Russia, India or China) with Israeli avionics input, although my favourite is the HAL FGFA. Buy the Flanker family now and have a stake in the PAK FA family in order to shock everyone by one early jump ahead with the HAL FGFA that would also give India some renomee - good vibes for upgrades and help in case of conflict by one of the emerging powers with a very strong software solution base. I'm not sure how much conflict China would risk under such conditions and how well Argentina can remain a US ally with such cooperation. I'm sorry to say that too much cooperation with China might not be beneficial for US-Argentine cooperation in other fields. India is a PAC-RIM state the US desperately tries to woo as an ally.*
The Brazil-China BRICS connection might welcome another member if the local rivalries are set aside. Brazil and China work together on carrier operations and nuclear submarines, but joining might be too much political reorientation for too insignificant a goal and it would enable Chile to boost US support in their local rivalry, raising the necessary expenditure level for success.
* (Not to the liking of Pakistand that is losing ally status in popular US perception because of "treason supporting the Islamists" and please don't ask about the veracity of these often repeated statements, they are part of a world of engineered feelings to vindicate political maneuvers)
In case of a first strike scenario, you need aerial surveillance, air defense and something that can carry out attacks on enemy airfields under any conditions.
Argentina has enough depth to stomach some enemy incursions with further away airfields and aerial refuelling. Buenos Aires not really within bombing range, unlike Santiago. With good surveillance you can avoid fighter on fighter combat wvr and carry out bombing missions on airfields and bvr engagements with missiles and surveillance counting most. Involvement of the UK in the conflict makes it likely that the US won't be on Argentina's side. I would opt for a carrier capable aircraft with a fully integrated electronics suit from Israel, including the AWACS, and some UAV from Israel that are capable of surveillance, bombing and electronic warfare.
The carrier capable aircraft is for economic reasons because Argentina has a small air force and wants to have a carrier. You can solve that problem by having part of the airforce in carrier capable aircrafts and part of it in a similar non-carrier version with many shared components (some will cry F-35 now, but I'd rather have a normal and a Sea Raptor). Rafale, MiG-29K/M and Su-33/27 Flanker come to my mind. You could join the Russo-Indian PAK FA/HAL FGFA development to get one of the most inexpensive to purchase 5th generation fighters (no comment on maintenance costs) with intent of naval versions. China is just getting started with the whole carrier issues, but the J-15 seems like a carrier based fighter and Argnetina might have a different vibe with Russia for good engines.
Opting for bvr and bombing with AWAC reliance makes kinematic issues paramount. These are speed and height. Going for height in bombing means that there's no solution better than a high altitude drone that reaches into the thin air regions of the U2. This UAV solution to bombing problems might best be researched with Israel because it provides a lot of other advantages in information collection. I would combine it with communication to a lower flying data processing AWAC aircraft. You also reduce the bomber demand on manned aircrafts this way and can go more for a fighter with bvr due to the system integration and wvr due to flight characteristics. The fighter and wvr characteristics are important to keep the Chileans not trigger happy about starting a conflict. The Rafale is as French as the Exochet. It's good against Chile, but won't make a dent against a UK support that is threatened any time by the Chile-UK common interests disputed by Argentina.
So we are left with the Russian products and possibly some Chinese if their carrier operations move along. MiG-29K/M, Su-33/27 and PAK FA/HAL FGFA are in the race. It's my opinion that Sukhoi is the better design bureau and MiG needs subsidies to survive. Ordering a MiG would leave you with higher costs as the design is not produced in as high numbers as the modern Sukhois. The numerous Sukhoi exports make it more likely to acquire some components from other countries than Russia.
Both the Su-33/27 Flankers as well as the PAK FA/HAL FGFA are options. The fashion in Latin America is for buying cheap second hand fighters, but I would try to get my hands on the PAK FA/HAL FGFA if Israeli upgrades on avionics and networking are possible. The avionics in the HAL FGFA are Indian and they do have a longstanding tradition of cooperation with Israel, making the Sukhoi HAL FGFA the most promising choice. Israeli input is needed especially for state of the art fried-foe recognition networked(!) with the aerial surveilance and defence aid systems.
The Su-33/27 Flanker is a cheaper option that can be obtained second hand, especially the Su-33 from Admiral Kuznetsov. It can be networked with Israeli avionics for processing surveillance data and friend-foe distinction and has a whole family line of 4++ evolutions available for upgrades.
Drones can serve three purposes, surveillance, electronic warfare and bombing. Integrating the fighters in an information network with drones will give the most benefits by being able to precisely bomb from a safe distance with on spot drone surveillance, to cover all tracks with drone electronic warfare and to take out important components of the enemy system with very risky bombing campaigns. The high altitude helps in all of these cases as drones don't have the maneuverability of fighters and should reliably cover a large region while communicating with far away friendlies. Adding drones to the costs of the mix can enhance effectiveness at lower aircraft costs (and capabilities) by superior intelligence - the whole network issue. Better safe some money on the fighters and spent it on their network.
Artillery can play an important role for aircraft operations, especially if it has very long range, can operate in the mountains and be deployed quickly by air (possibly disassembled). The border is very long - providing a low force density. GC-45 howitzer long range artillery offsprings, such as the Indian T-5 and T-6 designs, could bit by bit move the area for airfields back by their circumference for destructive fire. They will have extra range in these mountains because of the low air density and the height differences between areas where artillery can deploy and where space for airfields exists. I would roughly count a 50km radius for this artillery, giving it a 100 kilometers diameter. In combination with a gun on Argentine soil it reaches an interdiction depth of 150km. This can help to get a bit more of a buffer zone in certain regions and Chile is only about 500km deep, so taking out 150km of the mountain regions for permanent installations in certain places reduced their depth by 30%.
Add to this a safety margin of 100 km because any such strike would devastate the small air forces of both countries, then half the unrefueled sortie radius is over homeland and only 250km unrefueled penetration into the enemy country. The artillery will likely not accomplish the task all by itself. Cicaré CH-14 and and air dropped commandos would cooperate.
The artillery deployment has only a cutting edge advantage in the thin air high altitude regions of the mutual border and can thus provide support from a radius that will cover an area too large to reliably search for (area increase with the square of the radius). Down in the lower regions, artillery radius gets diminished, rendering it an unlikely candidate.
Other than artillery, China would be among the first nations to ask for missiles to take out enemy airfields. A few of them should be enough to threaten Chile into concentrating defence of their most capable fighter aircrafts in one location or face staggering costs of missile defence, the more dispersal they have. Concentration combined with Chile's geography would turn much of any armed conflict free of fighter and air defence interference, making a Tucano sufficient to carry out airstrikes. But we would possibly see some turboprop clashes and dogfights that taste like a comeback of an old era.
Chile will have to heavily depend on naval supply routes because the aforementioned Tucano and the Pucará can threaten their whole land based supplies, but these turboprops will need mobile chokepoints with day and night surveillance - by drones and airborne ground forces with remote controlled IED.
To hamper their fighters, especially in regions with low population density and correspondingly suspicious traffic on land, you need to endanger the sea routes. An Argentine aircraft carrier could accomplish that by establishing an airfield west of Chile in the disputed south. This carrier needs self-defense fighters and surveillance aircrafts to direct surface and subsurface assets (with additional naval mine laying). The Chilean coast will still be a tough nut to crack and you have to choose whether or not you shoot boats. The carrier and the corresponding airwing will be more in the range of a sea control design with a sea interdiction mission. The nearby land bases allow more carrier capable fighters to use the carrier as a relay station, highlighted below, in conflicts with Chile as well as with the UK, giving a small carrier near friendly shores a cutting edge advantage.
In both conflicts, with Chile and the UK, the most cost effective approach to interfere with their logistics would be SSK with guided missiles and data links to surveillance aircrafts (mostly unmanned and they can be quite cheap and numerous or few and high altitude). Australia shows the way, combining blue water SSK with guided missiles and mini-subs that should carry some armament in my opinion and be suited to deploy a small group of special forces, mostly to act as scouts. While SSK are not directly related with fighters, they do interfere with the logistics and fighters are very dependent on logistics. If enough insecurity for supplies is provided and stocks are running low, even the best fighters must ration their sorties while non-competitive fighters with good logistics can fly a lot more to carry out missions.
This makes the fighter problem related to the submarine procurement and capability. It's usually cheaper to rely more on submarines than on fighters and I guess Argentina will also take that route with cheaper fighters and more money for the subs.
As to the aircraft carrier question. The US(partly), Brazilian, UK and French carriers are heavily into bomber missions (others are into Harriers as a kind of helicopter/STOL, or in a swing state) and not into fighters on carriers such as the Russian approach (they botched it with the Yak, but that was the original idea). The Soviet aircraft carrying cruiser idea was not a bad concept overall, but the ongoing Russian trials still have a lot of work to do. The big difference was the intent to station more capable fighters on board, while having fewer numbers of fixed wings as the enemy. This was to be compensated by supremcy in aerial combat and by diverting the bombing mission to big bad missiles meant to take out high value targets in fleet engagements. It would have been ill suited to bomb Iraq into submission. However, you don't need to station missiles on the carrier as long as they are in the fleet. The carrier is the best tool to operate many flying assets with economies of scale instead of having a repair shop on each ship for one or two rotary wings. Most important will be the carrier based AWACS and UAV for, information dominance in NATO-slang, let's say non-inferior information flow.
Opting for the Russian fighter concept can help a lot to fend off superior numbers of carrier based "bombers". France, Russia, China or India will likely be very important partners for the next Argentine carrier that is most certain to come. Having additional numbers of interchangeable naval aircrafts based on land that can use the carrier as a relay station will increase strikes by flying much more aircrafts from the deck of the carrier than could fit in the hangar. It would be the closest Argentina can come to naval based air dominance in the South Atlantic waters. This solution can both fight Chile over the route and lands around Cape Horn and in the Antarctic, as well as pose a serious deterrence to the UK with some(=the best) chances of winning an armed clash. Furthermore it sets the route for an affordable STOBAR design as the other option would be an expensive catapult or the Harrier/F-35, both very bad ideas if the UK is possibly the enemy. STOBAR is not the most perfect system, but the Argentine pilots still maintain their training to handle the catch wires and had to experience how aircraft carriers become inoperational, including unrepairable catapult failure (Brazil and Argentina then helped each other to create one working carrier out of two dysfunctional ones). Low tech would be safe tech and use as a relay station for land based carrier aircrafts would take out much of the low weight take off problems. Bombers take off on land, fly to the target, drop weapons and return to the carrier to operate as fighters, possibly switch pilots, or refuel to return to their base on land. Aerial refuelling can not compete with carrier refuelling. The fighters on the carrier act as light bombers, electronic warfare platforms and escort fighters. But the most important part will be the extended range of intelligence gathering manned and unmanned assets and the rotary wings exercising sea control under fighter cover. It's a kind of mobile naval bastion concept because the area of conflict can be precisely limited to a region controllable by such a set-up and in this naval bastion in home waters you want to move supplies and bombers back and forth against enemy interference.
If you build a carrier for these fighters, mind that size is cheap and numbers are expensive, so the old Kuznetsov or an Indian/Chinese custom design that does include multipurpose space for amphibian ground forces as well, might best serve all requirements (Cavour). Here again, the carrier is more of a relay station between friendly shore and object in order to insert fresh and supplied troops into any area of conflict under all conditions (with a Zubr or a fast ferry catamaran). Having the capability to insert and supply troops, makes it more likely that a land base for aircrafts can be erected and maintained, giving access to more capable aircrafts to carry out more missions.
A very important consideration if fighting around Cape Horn is the sea state. It's the region renown for having on average the highest sea state and for this reason Cape Horner is still an exclusive club. With this in mind, Argentina is well advised to optimize aircrafts and carriers for take offs at higher sea states than any possible opponent because there will be plenty of no fly days for such a concept to create an advantage. Heavy aircrafts are especially suited for this task, whether they fly from land or from sea. The Russian carrier operates in a similar rough environment. While I would favour heavy under such conditions, they seem to have a reason for introducing the smaller naval MiG that India also favours (more aircrafts per ship).
China's J-15 is a naval Flanker derivate and a Flanker of Russian or Chinese origin might best suit the mission. It is a widespread design optimized for that purpose and the size is a bonus, while a carrier operating as a relay with nearby land bases does not require that much storage for aircrafts on board as a carrier that on its own travels with an airwing to far away places. You can combine the relay idea with some aerial refuelling that is away from the combat zone in between land base and the carrier which functions as the most forward deployed defended airfield.
My winner is the Su-33/27 Flanker family (and all offsprings and components of 4++ generation from Russia, India or China) with Israeli avionics input, although my favourite is the HAL FGFA. Buy the Flanker family now and have a stake in the PAK FA family in order to shock everyone by one early jump ahead with the HAL FGFA that would also give India some renomee - good vibes for upgrades and help in case of conflict by one of the emerging powers with a very strong software solution base. I'm not sure how much conflict China would risk under such conditions and how well Argentina can remain a US ally with such cooperation. I'm sorry to say that too much cooperation with China might not be beneficial for US-Argentine cooperation in other fields. India is a PAC-RIM state the US desperately tries to woo as an ally.*
The Brazil-China BRICS connection might welcome another member if the local rivalries are set aside. Brazil and China work together on carrier operations and nuclear submarines, but joining might be too much political reorientation for too insignificant a goal and it would enable Chile to boost US support in their local rivalry, raising the necessary expenditure level for success.
* (Not to the liking of Pakistand that is losing ally status in popular US perception because of "treason supporting the Islamists" and please don't ask about the veracity of these often repeated statements, they are part of a world of engineered feelings to vindicate political maneuvers)
Last edited:
Kurt
Junior Member
Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?
I missed one important aircraft type that can fullfill a carrier based and land based role, the F-18 Hornet and the Super Hornet. A number of countries use these and their use is not limited to bomber, but does include operating as inceptor. It has the bonus of being a US manufactured aircraft employed by a number of nations with lots of second hand aircrafts and their components available and within the capability price range of the Flanker family I highlighted above. If going for an F-18 design the Super Hornet is the heavier option for very rough weather conditions. It would profit from a slightly more powerful engine. More important than the performace issue will be the combat range because in the low force density setting it allows for engagements of choice.
The race between the Flanker family (including the Chinese branch) and the Hornet family is a close one and I can't decide which one would be best suited. It pretty much boils down to avionics installed with Israeli cooperation in order to network the whole airpower. The Hornets do have a head start due to alliance structure and would help to maintain the political balance as well as the experience from the Gringo-Gaucho exercises. For non-technical reasons the F-18, preferably Super Hornet, would be the first choice among the fighters with Flankers on a second place and a third place for the Fulcrums. The PAK FA family is a future option beyond immediate acquisition for some decades because Latin America has fallen deeply in love with the second hand idea.
I drifted away from a pure interceptor idea towards a multipurpose fighter with a naval carrier version for economies of scale reasons and because the low force density makes fighter engagements avoidable. On the other hand fighter engagements can be seeked for as in the envisioned interceptor role. I don't think the F-18 Hornet, let alone the Super Hornet, are inferior in such a regard because the higher thrust per weight of the Chilean F-16 is compensated by more drag and lower weight in the rough winds, so it will be a fair fight (what else between two such equal opponents?). The range for the heavier F-18 Hornet and Super Hornet will tell most because it turns the first strike option into a more one-sided affair, forcing the enemy on the defence.
I missed one important aircraft type that can fullfill a carrier based and land based role, the F-18 Hornet and the Super Hornet. A number of countries use these and their use is not limited to bomber, but does include operating as inceptor. It has the bonus of being a US manufactured aircraft employed by a number of nations with lots of second hand aircrafts and their components available and within the capability price range of the Flanker family I highlighted above. If going for an F-18 design the Super Hornet is the heavier option for very rough weather conditions. It would profit from a slightly more powerful engine. More important than the performace issue will be the combat range because in the low force density setting it allows for engagements of choice.
The race between the Flanker family (including the Chinese branch) and the Hornet family is a close one and I can't decide which one would be best suited. It pretty much boils down to avionics installed with Israeli cooperation in order to network the whole airpower. The Hornets do have a head start due to alliance structure and would help to maintain the political balance as well as the experience from the Gringo-Gaucho exercises. For non-technical reasons the F-18, preferably Super Hornet, would be the first choice among the fighters with Flankers on a second place and a third place for the Fulcrums. The PAK FA family is a future option beyond immediate acquisition for some decades because Latin America has fallen deeply in love with the second hand idea.
I drifted away from a pure interceptor idea towards a multipurpose fighter with a naval carrier version for economies of scale reasons and because the low force density makes fighter engagements avoidable. On the other hand fighter engagements can be seeked for as in the envisioned interceptor role. I don't think the F-18 Hornet, let alone the Super Hornet, are inferior in such a regard because the higher thrust per weight of the Chilean F-16 is compensated by more drag and lower weight in the rough winds, so it will be a fair fight (what else between two such equal opponents?). The range for the heavier F-18 Hornet and Super Hornet will tell most because it turns the first strike option into a more one-sided affair, forcing the enemy on the defence.
Last edited:
Miragedriver
Brigadier
Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?
Kurt, Thank you for that very insightful analysis. Either you area a military analyst, or you have missed your true calling. As a professional engineer and part-time armchair chief of staff, my knowledge of the current state of military affairs is what I gleaned off my cousin that works in the Navy Department. Therefore if some of my questions seem basic, it’s because this is not my field of expertise. Additionally please excuse my English. My thoughts are generated in Spanish and then translated into English in my brain (Unfortunately I do not have the new Intel chip installed), so something may be lost in translation.
With that said let me get into some comments. I should make it clear that I do not foresee Argentine entering into a conflict with the UK (either over the islands, or Antarctic claims). However if, or when, a conflict with Chile takes place the UK would not enter a shooting war with Argentine, but most likely provide Chile with the intelligence and reconnaissance that is not available to Chile. This is because the US would pressure the UK to not get involved, since it would not help US/UK interests in Latin America. Chile is still suffering (the bad reputation) from its permission to the UK to use Chilean territory to stage an SAS raid (Also the only South American Nation to support England in the Julian Assange headache). This was not viewed well by other nations in Latin America. However, your recommendations for UAV and intelligence gathering systems prove even more important based on this information, which I did not clarify earlier.
You were on the money when you stated that Latin America has a tendence to purchase used aircraft; this is SO very true. Used aircraft tend to be cheeper and opposition air forces are usually not well equipped either. This however is beginning to change with Venezuela’s purchase of 24 SU-27 (which is seen more as an offensive aircraft, as opposed to the MIg-29, which is seen as more defensive) and Chile which has 46 F-16 (10 new and 36 used). Brasil has been playing around with the F-X program for over ten years now. The possibility that they will go with the Rafale is strong give the resent arms purchases of four Scorpene Class submarines and the aircraft carrier (Foch). There has also been some talk about the Embraer MFT-LF, which could utilize the M-88 engine of the Rafale. This would provide Brazil with a similar combination as the F-16 and F-16 mix in the US.
There has been a great deal of cooperation between Brazil and Argentina in regards to the new transport aircraft (military, C-390) and small transport turboprops, both civilian and military. There are still negotiations to have one of the 209 submarines (ARA San Luis) be overhauled in Brazil. In regards to the carrier concept, both Brazil and Argentina have had discussions with South Korea (this is unconfirmed) on the possible construction (in Brazil shipyards) of a Korean designed Carrier, however, I believe that this is all here say. Carriers are an expensive proposition, which require a tremendous investment of money and time. Not to mention the incredible choreography that must take place to have the system function property. Personally, unless a nation wants to project military power, I do not see the carrier as a viable option. If the intent is to deny the enemy an airfield off your coast, then maybe two good squadrons of SU-24, or JH-7 together with some AWAC would not only be more economical, but also a great deterrent?
With the decommissioning and loss of the Veinte y Cinco de Mayo and its sale as scrap to India. Argentina was left without a carrier. The Navy still maintains a naval strike squadron consisting of Super Etendards, which perform regular “touch and goes” off the Brazilian carrier and US carriers, when they are in the area (see information regarding Gringo Gaucho Maneuvers). From what I have been told, the Argentine Navy still dreams of having a carrier, but this dream is unlikely to become a reality, just as the talks between Brazil, Argentina and Korea will. In addition to the talk of carriers , there have been rumors of the possibility for the acquisition, by Argentina, of the surplus Korean Pohang-class corvette, which are being decommissioned over the next decade. These small ships pack a decent punch and would help in patrolling the coastal waster in addition to providing an additional presence in the South Atlantic. The Navy is also planning to complete three of the four remaining unfinished TR-177 submarines it started almost twenty years ago. Funding (this is confirmed) has been allocated buy no visible signs of work has begun.
The two type 209 and the TR-1700; together with the Chilean type 209 and Scorpene submarines all have tall sails installed to deal with the rough seas of the South Atlantic. Chile currently holds the upper hand in the SSK with three 209s and three Scorpene. The Scorpene also fire tube launched exocet missiles. These platforms provide an incredible platform from which to attack surface ships. The rough seas defiantly make the detection of SSKs more difficult and add an additional nail in the coffin to a possible Argentine carrier. I can see the need for more SSKs. The three in operation and the one in overhaul are not sufficient for the Navy’s needs. The current TR-1700 are a good design, however they are falling behind and do not incorporate AIP propulsion. Perhaps the new Russian Amur class or the Chinese type 039 could be a good alternative (granted I still prefer German submarines).
Back to combat aircraft. A dream that most FAA fighter pilots (I have had the privilege of meeting) have is to fly an SU-27 or 30. Personally, I would like to see the SU-27/30/33 in the FAA inventory, especially with their being so many or these aircraft available on the used market (mostly Eastern Europe and Russia. It would also be nice to see Argentina produce the S-54 in order to provide a high low mix with the Su-27 types; however, I do not see that ever becoming a possibility. Even though Argentina developed the Pulqui I, Pulqui II, Pucara and Pampa, I believe that the aircraft industry needs several years, if not a decade, of reconstruction before it can even hope to construct aircraft in the 4+ generation category. It is amazing how they have kept the vintage mirage IIIs flying all these years, and they did rebuild 30 of the 36 A-4Ms in Cordoba, so the technical ability and will exist.
Another part of the FAA would like to fly the F-18 (Argentina has always preferred US Navy aircraft). But, F-18 would come with advantages and disadvantages: first, they could probable not purchase more than 18, or at the very most 36 aircraft, which is enough for one to two squadrons; second Argentina would have to stay more in line with US policy (which actually would be an advantage for Argentina); thirdly it would only be able to get the A/B model; In combat the F-18 has a longer BVR capability, but in a dogfight the F-16 would come out ahead. On the other side, it provides a great BVR aircraft that the air force so desperately needs; it provides a great strike package, and being used as a land based aircraft, it would extend the life by not having to perform carrier landings.
As you mentioned perhaps the idea of building combat aircraft is not necessary, since they can be purchased second hand and upgraded with Israeli avionics. Argentina should concentrate on the license manufacturing of UAV’s, both of the high altitude bombing and surveillance variety. Additionally I believe that earlier in this thread I mentioned that the air force had budgeted the purchase of four Embraer R-99 as AWAC, which is a good start. It is interesting to note there is money available to upgrade the military as a whole and to provide for the defense of its citizens (which is what a government should do). However, there recycled radicals from the 70’s (which are now in charge) have always distrusted the military and for the last 15-years has starved them of funds. The one good thing that has come out of all this is that the Military is now a volunteer force and much more professional. They have participated in many UN peacekeeping missions and have worked with some NATO forces when deployed in Serbia. In the last two decades the military has had to make due with less. This has made them become more efficient and creative with the equipment they have in inventory. Unfortunately, the monies needed for improvements are now coming in. Even anti-military leftist have realized that they do not have sabers to rattle, but instead have butter knives. Argentine is still hoping that it can piggy back in Brazil’s shoulders and opt for the new Brazilian F-X fighter, and hope reduce its acquisition cost. However, seeing how the F-X selection is going, that may force Argentina to go it along. The best option (you mentioned and I agree) is the J-15-Su-27/30/33 family. 18 would be a start and 36 would be manageable. Nevertheless, the FAA will require some additional aircraft, both to complement the SU family and to eventually replace the Skyhawk’s (in the Air Force) and the Super Etendard’s (in the Naval Aviation). As you mentioned, something that is good in the WVR aspect and can handle itself well in a dogfight. Another form member suggested a single seat version of the JL-15 as a suitable aircraft.
The only thing that would make me hesitate about cooperating with Hal in the Sukhoi/HAL FGFA is HALs track record. The Tajas program is not a shining example of fighter aircraft design and planning, for that matter neither is the Maurut. Additionally, the quality of workmanship is not all there (Mig-21, Mig-23 and Mig-29). Forgive me if my timetable is off, but was not the Tajas program started long before the JF-17 program? The JF-17 is now in full production and HAL is still tinkering with the Tajes (I think they dropped the indigenous power plant and are back to the 404 engine).
It is interesting that you mentioned the use of Tucano's and Pucara's. The Pucara was designed to be a used in primitive airfield to keep up with front line troops and press the attack/recon etc.. These aircraft should be taken out of the air force and placed under the control of the army. These aircraft with some night-vision systems could be used to their full advantage, either by blunting enemy attacks or press in a counter attack. There is nothing like low-level aircraft bombing, strafing and causing general mayhem to demoralize opposing force. Additionally, as you mentioned with proper UAV reconnaissance these aircraft could be more effective. Another advantage is that they do not require airfields. Once the fighting starts, long runways may be a luxury that neither side may have.
I admit that I am not very familiar with the different types of UAV systems available on the market today. This may be a topic for another thread, but could you kindly enlighten me on the different types and their use in conjunction with early warning aircraft, AWAC and high altitude bombing. I understand the basic concept of the UAV used in the reconnaissance role to identify a target and have strike aircraft, or artillery (if in range) dispatched the target. Could alternative UAVs be used in the early warning/AWAC role?
Kurt, Thank you for that very insightful analysis. Either you area a military analyst, or you have missed your true calling. As a professional engineer and part-time armchair chief of staff, my knowledge of the current state of military affairs is what I gleaned off my cousin that works in the Navy Department. Therefore if some of my questions seem basic, it’s because this is not my field of expertise. Additionally please excuse my English. My thoughts are generated in Spanish and then translated into English in my brain (Unfortunately I do not have the new Intel chip installed), so something may be lost in translation.
With that said let me get into some comments. I should make it clear that I do not foresee Argentine entering into a conflict with the UK (either over the islands, or Antarctic claims). However if, or when, a conflict with Chile takes place the UK would not enter a shooting war with Argentine, but most likely provide Chile with the intelligence and reconnaissance that is not available to Chile. This is because the US would pressure the UK to not get involved, since it would not help US/UK interests in Latin America. Chile is still suffering (the bad reputation) from its permission to the UK to use Chilean territory to stage an SAS raid (Also the only South American Nation to support England in the Julian Assange headache). This was not viewed well by other nations in Latin America. However, your recommendations for UAV and intelligence gathering systems prove even more important based on this information, which I did not clarify earlier.
You were on the money when you stated that Latin America has a tendence to purchase used aircraft; this is SO very true. Used aircraft tend to be cheeper and opposition air forces are usually not well equipped either. This however is beginning to change with Venezuela’s purchase of 24 SU-27 (which is seen more as an offensive aircraft, as opposed to the MIg-29, which is seen as more defensive) and Chile which has 46 F-16 (10 new and 36 used). Brasil has been playing around with the F-X program for over ten years now. The possibility that they will go with the Rafale is strong give the resent arms purchases of four Scorpene Class submarines and the aircraft carrier (Foch). There has also been some talk about the Embraer MFT-LF, which could utilize the M-88 engine of the Rafale. This would provide Brazil with a similar combination as the F-16 and F-16 mix in the US.
There has been a great deal of cooperation between Brazil and Argentina in regards to the new transport aircraft (military, C-390) and small transport turboprops, both civilian and military. There are still negotiations to have one of the 209 submarines (ARA San Luis) be overhauled in Brazil. In regards to the carrier concept, both Brazil and Argentina have had discussions with South Korea (this is unconfirmed) on the possible construction (in Brazil shipyards) of a Korean designed Carrier, however, I believe that this is all here say. Carriers are an expensive proposition, which require a tremendous investment of money and time. Not to mention the incredible choreography that must take place to have the system function property. Personally, unless a nation wants to project military power, I do not see the carrier as a viable option. If the intent is to deny the enemy an airfield off your coast, then maybe two good squadrons of SU-24, or JH-7 together with some AWAC would not only be more economical, but also a great deterrent?
With the decommissioning and loss of the Veinte y Cinco de Mayo and its sale as scrap to India. Argentina was left without a carrier. The Navy still maintains a naval strike squadron consisting of Super Etendards, which perform regular “touch and goes” off the Brazilian carrier and US carriers, when they are in the area (see information regarding Gringo Gaucho Maneuvers). From what I have been told, the Argentine Navy still dreams of having a carrier, but this dream is unlikely to become a reality, just as the talks between Brazil, Argentina and Korea will. In addition to the talk of carriers , there have been rumors of the possibility for the acquisition, by Argentina, of the surplus Korean Pohang-class corvette, which are being decommissioned over the next decade. These small ships pack a decent punch and would help in patrolling the coastal waster in addition to providing an additional presence in the South Atlantic. The Navy is also planning to complete three of the four remaining unfinished TR-177 submarines it started almost twenty years ago. Funding (this is confirmed) has been allocated buy no visible signs of work has begun.
The two type 209 and the TR-1700; together with the Chilean type 209 and Scorpene submarines all have tall sails installed to deal with the rough seas of the South Atlantic. Chile currently holds the upper hand in the SSK with three 209s and three Scorpene. The Scorpene also fire tube launched exocet missiles. These platforms provide an incredible platform from which to attack surface ships. The rough seas defiantly make the detection of SSKs more difficult and add an additional nail in the coffin to a possible Argentine carrier. I can see the need for more SSKs. The three in operation and the one in overhaul are not sufficient for the Navy’s needs. The current TR-1700 are a good design, however they are falling behind and do not incorporate AIP propulsion. Perhaps the new Russian Amur class or the Chinese type 039 could be a good alternative (granted I still prefer German submarines).
Back to combat aircraft. A dream that most FAA fighter pilots (I have had the privilege of meeting) have is to fly an SU-27 or 30. Personally, I would like to see the SU-27/30/33 in the FAA inventory, especially with their being so many or these aircraft available on the used market (mostly Eastern Europe and Russia. It would also be nice to see Argentina produce the S-54 in order to provide a high low mix with the Su-27 types; however, I do not see that ever becoming a possibility. Even though Argentina developed the Pulqui I, Pulqui II, Pucara and Pampa, I believe that the aircraft industry needs several years, if not a decade, of reconstruction before it can even hope to construct aircraft in the 4+ generation category. It is amazing how they have kept the vintage mirage IIIs flying all these years, and they did rebuild 30 of the 36 A-4Ms in Cordoba, so the technical ability and will exist.
Another part of the FAA would like to fly the F-18 (Argentina has always preferred US Navy aircraft). But, F-18 would come with advantages and disadvantages: first, they could probable not purchase more than 18, or at the very most 36 aircraft, which is enough for one to two squadrons; second Argentina would have to stay more in line with US policy (which actually would be an advantage for Argentina); thirdly it would only be able to get the A/B model; In combat the F-18 has a longer BVR capability, but in a dogfight the F-16 would come out ahead. On the other side, it provides a great BVR aircraft that the air force so desperately needs; it provides a great strike package, and being used as a land based aircraft, it would extend the life by not having to perform carrier landings.
As you mentioned perhaps the idea of building combat aircraft is not necessary, since they can be purchased second hand and upgraded with Israeli avionics. Argentina should concentrate on the license manufacturing of UAV’s, both of the high altitude bombing and surveillance variety. Additionally I believe that earlier in this thread I mentioned that the air force had budgeted the purchase of four Embraer R-99 as AWAC, which is a good start. It is interesting to note there is money available to upgrade the military as a whole and to provide for the defense of its citizens (which is what a government should do). However, there recycled radicals from the 70’s (which are now in charge) have always distrusted the military and for the last 15-years has starved them of funds. The one good thing that has come out of all this is that the Military is now a volunteer force and much more professional. They have participated in many UN peacekeeping missions and have worked with some NATO forces when deployed in Serbia. In the last two decades the military has had to make due with less. This has made them become more efficient and creative with the equipment they have in inventory. Unfortunately, the monies needed for improvements are now coming in. Even anti-military leftist have realized that they do not have sabers to rattle, but instead have butter knives. Argentine is still hoping that it can piggy back in Brazil’s shoulders and opt for the new Brazilian F-X fighter, and hope reduce its acquisition cost. However, seeing how the F-X selection is going, that may force Argentina to go it along. The best option (you mentioned and I agree) is the J-15-Su-27/30/33 family. 18 would be a start and 36 would be manageable. Nevertheless, the FAA will require some additional aircraft, both to complement the SU family and to eventually replace the Skyhawk’s (in the Air Force) and the Super Etendard’s (in the Naval Aviation). As you mentioned, something that is good in the WVR aspect and can handle itself well in a dogfight. Another form member suggested a single seat version of the JL-15 as a suitable aircraft.
The only thing that would make me hesitate about cooperating with Hal in the Sukhoi/HAL FGFA is HALs track record. The Tajas program is not a shining example of fighter aircraft design and planning, for that matter neither is the Maurut. Additionally, the quality of workmanship is not all there (Mig-21, Mig-23 and Mig-29). Forgive me if my timetable is off, but was not the Tajas program started long before the JF-17 program? The JF-17 is now in full production and HAL is still tinkering with the Tajes (I think they dropped the indigenous power plant and are back to the 404 engine).
It is interesting that you mentioned the use of Tucano's and Pucara's. The Pucara was designed to be a used in primitive airfield to keep up with front line troops and press the attack/recon etc.. These aircraft should be taken out of the air force and placed under the control of the army. These aircraft with some night-vision systems could be used to their full advantage, either by blunting enemy attacks or press in a counter attack. There is nothing like low-level aircraft bombing, strafing and causing general mayhem to demoralize opposing force. Additionally, as you mentioned with proper UAV reconnaissance these aircraft could be more effective. Another advantage is that they do not require airfields. Once the fighting starts, long runways may be a luxury that neither side may have.
I admit that I am not very familiar with the different types of UAV systems available on the market today. This may be a topic for another thread, but could you kindly enlighten me on the different types and their use in conjunction with early warning aircraft, AWAC and high altitude bombing. I understand the basic concept of the UAV used in the reconnaissance role to identify a target and have strike aircraft, or artillery (if in range) dispatched the target. Could alternative UAVs be used in the early warning/AWAC role?
Pointblank
Senior Member
Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?
FYI, some reports indicated that the Venezuelan Su-30's were used; they were apparently from a batch of Su-30MK2's that were rejected by the Chinese. Otherwise, there was no way Sukhoi would have been able to deliver Su-30's to the Venezuelans so quickly after the order was placed.