Low-cost, muti-role aircraft for small militaries

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

That would be nice replacement indeed. However, given the tradition of purchasing used aircraft and having them upgraded, I see the Su-27 and a likely contender, or better the Su-33

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

I'm under time constrains until the famous Munich Oktoberfest is over.
Light aircrafts do have more surface per weight and more cross section per engine power output limiting range or speed while you get no discount for avionics that cost just the same for the same kind of capability.

You suggest to buy a Chinese trainer aircraft, the L-15. A trainer aircraft is a cheap to operate platform that simulates the characteristics of the real thing as good as possible. It's not a fighter and not intended as such. Using it in warfare is a last ditch attempt.

In a nutshell: If you buy Chinese, get a brand new tailored fighter for your conditions, needs and budget that can also be exported to other countries.

You might however notice one thing, the US has a military design for interventions always including blue water. The Russians have their designs for defending large swaths of land with a heritage of land based massed clash concepts (Cold War). China has a much debated "area denial", assassin's mace development and considers a first and a second island chain as maritime defence lines accroding to US reports. Part of Europe has developed a hang for medium sized hardware with high payload to be used in mostly hypothetical defense scenarios and as a sidekick in US-led interventions.
Argentina wants to be able to fight under very rough climatic conditions low force density conflicts with light ground forces and needs a suitable air support that hinders enemy bombers. In my opinion China is quite close to that idea and that can provide synergies, plus China is hungry for an export market to boost the cost-efficiency of her military development. Major partners are Pakistan and Brazil and via Brazil Argentina can join and wheather the US-wrath.
I don't suggest to pretend that the trainer of one nation is a fighter for another and capable of shooting down an F-16, still one of the most important military aircrafts up to date. But looking at China does include more than is known available, China is developing eager and they have potential and growth. Russia still profits from the increasingly outdated Soviet-Union research and ideas without an equal new input. UK will align with Chile and USA with UK and Europe won't be against UK and Israel won't be against USA, leaving little choices as you put the diplomatic situation. It's China or second choice Russia when you look at the options for the future or just forget at least for a while these island claims and all expenditure involved with the problems they cause.

Argentina is a large country and the first reaction would be to go for interceptors, but with that low force density along all borders it's nonsense. Build more cheap and light COIN aircrafts to carry out the usual bombing missions and wire these COIN for better communication. The US will be interested into such stuff because they got a hang on fighting self-inflicted insurgencies at non-inflated costs.
The aircraft is rather a fighter that is meant to survive in airspace and make survival tough for other aircrafts. If you use the low force density clever, you skip a fast interceptor, go for low induced drag and corresponding long range endurance at slow speed and little necessity for supercruise marching. Whatever is faster than your fighters will be tracked and killed by a kind of "flying bloodhound". The most important requirement under these circumstances is maneuverability without losing energy. You get that with a canard design like the J-10.
The subsonic low drag requirement has been tested with forward swept wings by a number of nations and it proofed a good idea for drag, but had complicated wings with problems in wing loading for bombs. This is South America, just forget the bombs underwing fighters because a) you lack heavy ground forces to bomb and b) that's the mission of COIN aircrafts. Airfields, radar installations and ships requires little bombloads or an occasional cruise missile, and the very daring spirit of the Argentine pilots highlighted during their wars to hit the mark. It's better to increase range than speed because no matter how fast an enemy is, he must concentrate within a limited radius from an established base and aerial refuelling is available to both sides.
Optimized subsonic flight capability of the fighter will serve well if you keep a high-low mix in mind. Create the Pucará-successor as the low part to a fighter that is capable to escort these at their cruising speed to a target to bomb. The fighter will be below optimal drag speed, but the drag should be low enough to achieve the same sortie range. Thus you have solved the bombload problem, because there are few as cheap precise bomb delivery systems as your homegrown Pucarás.
And that's where you can take China into the game. You create one of the world's cheapest fighters interoperable with one of the cheapest bombers and together they provide a COIN mix that can at low costs sustain air defence via the fighter capability with some possible bvr Pucará support against more expensive multi-role systems. Give the fighters EW instead of stealth or much bombloads and use them as a advance guard to knock out enemy interference with limited bomb delivery. This system is not on the market, but if you want to pay the political price for a closer alliance with China then make them pay you with the most suitable stuff that has good cahnces to catch on as a very cost efficient solution for most militaries of the world that are small, devoid of money and technical education of recruits.
China has great minds and designing capabilities to help you, make a breakthrough, create your own system optimized for the conditions of South America. The most important parts will be up to date avionics, jam-resistant data links and capable EW (forget low observeability, it's too expensive for your budget).
Interceptors can concentrate on enemy incursions, but that's a problem for different regions of the world where you don't have this very low force density with light forces who hardly need logistics. Just don't care whether any enemy aircraft has entered your territory, some point defense anti-air measures are all you'll ever be able to field for certain denial. Any kind of interception can not rely on speed and the corresponding massive fuel consumption. Hide true numbers via EW and low altitude flight over friendly territory and buy a large batch of Embraer AWACS that can be combined with some UAV from various sources, especially China. The UAV development seems to be directed towards very long endurance, range and low observeability with data links and some bomb delivery. Use their data combined with your AWACS and many mobile ground based radar and other surveillance stations in order to create an information supremacy network that enables independent of fighter speed to prepare for interception in select cases that are unknown to the enemy. That creates a corresponding risk factor to limit enemy operations. You don't have a Raptor and you don't need to shoot down every bombing attempt directed against you because Argentina's light forces have pretty little irreplaceable things not uder a good point defence in the regions they will clash.
China is not so much about the aircrafts they have ready, but that they are a highly enterprising and experimental lot that seems to get quite renown in the avionics field. At the same time their aircrafts sell at a reasonable price. The quality of Chinese engines seems an endless issue for uninformed discussion. Just make it massive, easy to maintain, powerful and skip some bombload for that goal. If you buy Chinese you break out of the second-hand-market and jump ahead in generations. Make such a decision clever with an eye on exports of such a joint project. China is very eager to gain traction on the international market, use that. They are one of the best avionics and electronics sources for Argentina that will not be compromised by a weightier alliance in case of conflict. It doesn't really matter much what kind of fighter you buy as long as it's the same generation as the F-16 with compareable maneuverability and enough available flight hours und Patagonian conditions (for China you need a Tibet and Manchuria test). But from the start fitting the fighter design to an overall concept of your force will much more increase your punch than trying to buy super-fighters of a different conceptual idea for that money and afterwards wrapping your force around them.

Lower induced drag will help with lower stall speed, lower stall speed helps with STOL and STOL gets you going on short makeshift runways, including mobile runways (almost an aircraft carrier replacement that can outmaneuver the set peacetime positions) and finally on very simple STOBAR carriers.

Combine cheap low tech aerial bomb delivery vehicles with fighters able to escort and protect them as the Argentine version of the worldwide high-low concept of more fighter-more bomber design that is meant to be cost efficient solution to the airpower problems agreed upon by both the Soviets and the USA. Protection includes outstanding EW to deny the enemy much information (you can't hide like with stealth, but you leave the other guy clueless about what that signal means) and AWACS + UAV surveillance against surprises.
Future UAVs will likely include stealth bomber capability that will be more of a threat to enemy fighters, bombers and interceptors of whatever generation because they all have to land within their range. A fighter will become more of an escort against interceptors and an optional part of trap constellations against enemy incursions. The common interceptor idea would only be valid if Urugay posed a major threat to you and combining high speed interceptor with outstanding maneuverability will be so expensive that only white elephants are affordable.

That's the other important part. get information, deny information and punch wherever you want. To punch wherever you want you need a carrier, you need carrier based refuelling aircrafts and you need the ability to land aircrafts alternately on land or on carrier. Last time it was a major problem that the airfield in the Falklands was destroyed. Such an airfield is a fixed target with major infrastructure for fuel storage and a runway. Next time you need a different concept against whatever enemy. You do fight within your green water where your frigats and corvets have an outstanding capability to face more expensive enemy blue water ships with more sea endurance at equal terms. Take a simple rugged carrier for rough seas, a reliable high speed ferry connection of at least two large ferries and a mobile runway that can hide. The mobile runway is a carrier runway imitation for STOL operations that will pose a major problem to all opponents because it enables to outmaneuver the known pre-war locations. being able to transport such a runway and supplies via ferry will make it equal to a second aircraft carrier.
And get your network of flying tankers, AWACS and UAV to be able to operate together with the other aircrafts as an information network. No information network - not a chance for any type of fighter. Updated avionics are part of such a network because it doesn't help to have information if it can't be used by the network components.


I think you keep asking the wrong questions. What kind of avionics can be put on an airframe that is of an acceptable quality and specification?

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

The longer I think about this problem, the more interesting it gets and the more prior statements I have to modify and agree with miragedriver:

It's unnecessary to have an interceptor, you need fighter escorts, some autonomous UAV stealth bombing capability(from a non-indigenous source with wartime reliability against information leaks for enemy hacks) and a good mobile air defense.

The escort secures own airstrikes and the safety of the information network nodes. stealth UAV hunt down any superior enemy fighters on the ground, add to this commando forces for the same task, and mobile air defence can deny access to most important bases and structures. this makes high bombloads of limited utility because there are no targets in a light and low density force environment.

The major battle will be about the information network. Radar is nice for targeting solutions and will be among the first items too dangerous to constantly use. Passive surveillance with an information network can help a lot not only to silently vector aircrafts, but to limit radar active emission exposure. Passive detection radar is something interesting if you see it as enabling surveillance with cheap microwave emission sources (outdated telephone communication masts and so on). Whatever is capable of electromagnetic emissions is good. It needs a mobile electricty supply (camouflagged and away from destruction) and the question should be whether eliminating them is more expensive than installing them. It's not as perfect as a purpose built radar, but if you see radar as one of the tools for information collection, then long wave (stealth immune) radar can help to narrow sectors for passive surveillance and passive surveillance can further narrow down the information requirement for obtaining a tageting solution. That's all part of an information obtainment and distribution network. So you will need assets to run that despite intense attempts at jamming this component. Directed laser is one possible source, radio communication will need lots of proof and wide frequency hopping and structural alteration in order to survive sophisticated jamming.
If the F-35 is meant as some kind of bvr "fighter"/missile truck then a networked Pucará can also do that bvr and work as a small bombtruck because in South America you fight drug smuggling gangs and light enemy ground forces, not thousands of tanks.
So a lot of fighter demand in my opinion is unnecessary if you have an information network with nodes that can use it to attack hardware. Fighters have a very limited utility in such a setting and would profit from a combination of maneuverability, electronic warfare and anti-information-network-centric attack capability such as very long range missiles that can be released at high speed and altitude. On second look, your high-end trainer suggestion might be even a good idea, depending on Chinese avionics and modifications.
Stealth is unobtainable, but some degree of reduced radar reflection and IR emission would improve the EW. Toying with this idea makes it an ideal testbed for assassin's mace ideas by fighting a stealth and networked observation superior foe.

The Pucará will need a replacement and this type of aircraft should be the Argentine JSF, realy cheap, with all kinds of bombs, a networked bvr missile truck with long range and endurance. Speed and efficiency can be increased by introducing a fan instead of the propeller, so there won't be that much gap between the optimum speed for the fighter while both need to get into the long strike range business. Sacrifice cruising speed for a significant unrefuelled range advantage of both aircrafts. The Argentine/Chinese mini-"Raptor" is an escort that is highly capable to defend own assets and attack any enemy's information network components(AWACS, communication links, UAV, radar stations). China will like that part, especially if it is part of an arms race test that doesn't escalate into an armed conflict, rather the usual uncourtesy of hostile training against each other during peace tensions, with a US-supplied country and the UK. Some level of success will further validate the capability of Chinese weapon system to counter the current high tech intervention powers in a defensive setting that still enables the defender to carry out airstrikes against their usual problems. Killing hardware is the job of the usual Latin American COIN aircraft. Hardware does include ships to be attacked with torpedoes.
An interesting part is the speed, the slower, the better for precise ground attacks with little munition wasted and thus required, while a high cruise speed is needed to keep up with the fighter. Reducing the cruise speed of the fighter is possible, but this must be a design that still allows for outstanding maneuverability and speed for bvr defense and wvr dogfighting at dry thrust without switching to the fuel intense afterburner. These demands for aerodynamics and engine characteristics will be very interesting to figure out. sacrificing much bomber demands can help to streamline for these demands. The Harrier experience was insofar interesting as it showed that slower speed with higher maneuverability could win.

The idea with the mobile ferried runway really got me going, I wonder why I didn't have it before. It's the Swedish idea for naval aviation with STOL aircrafts (they have strong ties to BAE). Their runways are already in place as they have a lot of roads despite being one of the low population density lands of Europe. Argentina has no chance to have such a network of roads available in the contested places. But one unit of her pioneers could be equipped for sea mobility to embark and rapidly construct runways on land. Supply with fuel, spares and munitions can be carried out via embarking from a ferry and using submersible tanks with a pipeline as fuel store deposit. Adding good camouflage and some air defence will help the surviveability of the concept. STOL runways within the 300m range will be hard and expensive to eliminate, especially if most other parts of the airbase can be hidden and the runways get constantly repaired pr previously camouflagged runways suddenly apear for use. That's why Sweden is such a great example of effective naval warfare at astonishing low costs. Having a STOL concept for icy short runways on land combined with large fast ferries would eliminate any carrier requirements in Tierra del Fuego. That saves a lot of money.
The Falklands are well defended, but South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands can fall prey to a ferry with ground forces and the ability to set up difficult to eliminate STOL airfields. It's astonishing, but the 2000km range could be gapped between two such bases one Tierra del Fuego and on Georgia, including a capability to strike at Falklands in between if strikes fly from one base to another and have 1000km strike radius (modern development from the previous 500km). Add to this some aerial refuelling and you got an affordable solution to endanger amphibious ships that stay out at sea unlike last time where you were limited in range.
The Falklands themselves have a very fractured coastline and some mountains that can offer protection against prevailing winds. It might be more difficult, but it shouldn't be impossible to ferry a STOL airfield somewhere near there with ground forces.
So in theory you can save money on a carrier and invest into ferries with some luck in a stealthy surprise attack.

An aircraft carrier under these circumstances is rather about having an improved surveillance and air defense for a fleet. It makes for one of the cheapest aircraft carriers possible that needs very good stability and high decks for the rough seas + 300m flight. Your idea of a US amphibious warfare ship can be quite suitable if you put the emphasis on amphibious with additional aircraft cover.

I highlighted before the problem of rough winds and aircraft size. Going small will certainly not improve that while going slow makes windspeeds a higher fluctuation of airspeed with corresponding drag increase of the already higher drag of small aircrafts. The problem is that the heavier types will have an advantage due to the frequent storms in availability of airpower. Desiging aircraft structures to offset that and be possibly better suited to these conditions will be another challenge that will greatly benefit the Chinese naval, especially carrier, aviation.

The meaning interceptor should not be taken too literally as meaning a very fast long range marching fighter that will outmaneuver anything within the defended airspace. There's a clear trend for increased reliance on information processing of avionics linked to a surveillance network with increasingly longer range missiles. Taking an assassin's mace approach you can create interception without possessing such expensive and capable fighters. It depends on the organization and unpredictability of missile batteries and the current development of long range AWACS killers that can mature into fighter-killer capable missiles.

An idea in a such a low force environment for an affordable "interceptor" would be a method to rapidly fly air defence guided missile batteries and supporting infrastructure around. It must be disassembled into suitable pieces and needs transport aircrafts capable of handling a lot of suboptimal STOL conditions. Nowadays each such battery needs an UAV with good self-defence to help with targeting at minimized exposure of positions that can be used to target back.

If you take the Russian/Chinese cruise missile bomber derivate ideas and make them a flying very long range missile batteries. Altitude combined with the high speed of anti-aircraft missiles do make it a possible interceptor for a low force density environment. Currently, that option is more focused on fighting enemy AWACS. The problem with great power warfare is the lack of space to enact such ideas, requiring to fire across a large space from behind the own line. The Xian H6X variants have a number of air to surface missiles, including anti-ship missiles and antiradiation missiles with very long range of the YJ-12 variants, giving this system a very long range high speed air-to-air variant against fighterswould be very experimental. As a limited design study it would be an interesting attempt for a different kind of interceptor design that relies more on information supremacy than on the airframe with very long strike range. China will likely have an open ear for such a proposal because they try to develop a number of systems that have a chance of an efficient asymmetric approach. At the same time the Xian is large enough to host sophisticated surveillance and EW while being able to fly under rough wheather conditions, making it possible culmination of avionic intense missile truck concepts. fitting these missiles on your usual STOL capable Embraer AWACS aircrafts would massively alter aerial warfare in this region and give the word interceptor a new meaning.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

The longer I think about this problem, the more interesting it gets and the more prior statements I have to modify and agree with miragedriver:

It's unnecessary to have an interceptor, you need fighter escorts, some autonomous UAV stealth bombing capability(from a non-indigenous source with wartime reliability against information leaks for enemy hacks) and a good mobile air defense.

The escort secures own airstrikes and the safety of the information network nodes. stealth UAV hunt down any superior enemy fighters on the ground, add to this commando forces for the same task, and mobile air defence can deny access to most important bases and structures. this makes high bombloads of limited utility because there are no targets in a light and low density force environment.

The major battle will be about the information network. Radar is nice for targeting solutions and will be among the first items too dangerous to constantly use. Passive surveillance with an information network can help a lot not only to silently vector aircrafts, but to limit radar active emission exposure. Passive detection radar is something interesting if you see it as enabling surveillance with cheap microwave emission sources (outdated telephone communication masts and so on). Whatever is capable of electromagnetic emissions is good. It needs a mobile electricty supply (camouflagged and away from destruction) and the question should be whether eliminating them is more expensive than installing them. It's not as perfect as a purpose built radar, but if you see radar as one of the tools for information collection, then long wave (stealth immune) radar can help to narrow sectors for passive surveillance and passive surveillance can further narrow down the information requirement for obtaining a tageting solution. That's all part of an information obtainment and distribution network. So you will need assets to run that despite intense attempts at jamming this component. Directed laser is one possible source, radio communication will need lots of proof and wide frequency hopping and structural alteration in order to survive sophisticated jamming.
If the F-35 is meant as some kind of bvr "fighter"/missile truck then a networked Pucará can also do that bvr and work as a small bombtruck because in South America you fight drug smuggling gangs and light enemy ground forces, not thousands of tanks.
So a lot of fighter demand in my opinion is unnecessary if you have an information network with nodes that can use it to attack hardware. Fighters have a very limited utility in such a setting and would profit from a combination of maneuverability, electronic warfare and anti-information-network-centric attack capability such as very long range missiles that can be released at high speed and altitude. On second look, your high-end trainer suggestion might be even a good idea, depending on Chinese avionics and modifications.
Stealth is unobtainable, but some degree of reduced radar reflection and IR emission would improve the EW. Toying with this idea makes it an ideal testbed for assassin's mace ideas by fighting a stealth and networked observation superior foe.

The Pucará will need a replacement and this type of aircraft should be the Argentine JSF, realy cheap, with all kinds of bombs, a networked bvr missile truck with long range and endurance. Speed and efficiency can be increased by introducing a fan instead of the propeller, so there won't be that much gap between the optimum speed for the fighter while both need to get into the long strike range business. Sacrifice cruising speed for a significant unrefuelled range advantage of both aircrafts. The Argentine/Chinese mini-"Raptor" is an escort that is highly capable to defend own assets and attack any enemy's information network components(AWACS, communication links, UAV, radar stations). China will like that part, especially if it is part of an arms race test that doesn't escalate into an armed conflict, rather the usual uncourtesy of hostile training against each other during peace tensions, with a US-supplied country and the UK. Some level of success will further validate the capability of Chinese weapon system to counter the current high tech intervention powers in a defensive setting that still enables the defender to carry out airstrikes against their usual problems. Killing hardware is the job of the usual Latin American COIN aircraft. Hardware does include ships to be attacked with torpedoes.
An interesting part is the speed, the slower, the better for precise ground attacks with little munition wasted and thus required, while a high cruise speed is needed to keep up with the fighter. Reducing the cruise speed of the fighter is possible, but this must be a design that still allows for outstanding maneuverability and speed for bvr defense and wvr dogfighting at dry thrust without switching to the fuel intense afterburner. These demands for aerodynamics and engine characteristics will be very interesting to figure out. sacrificing much bomber demands can help to streamline for these demands. The Harrier experience was insofar interesting as it showed that slower speed with higher maneuverability could win.

The idea with the mobile ferried runway really got me going, I wonder why I didn't have it before. It's the Swedish idea for naval aviation with STOL aircrafts (they have strong ties to BAE). Their runways are already in place as they have a lot of roads despite being one of the low population density lands of Europe. Argentina has no chance to have such a network of roads available in the contested places. But some units of her engineers could be equipped for sea mobility to embark and rapidly construct runways on land. Supply with fuel, spares and munitions can be carried out via embarking from a ferry and using submersible tanks with a pipeline as fuel store deposits. Adding good camouflage and some air defence will help the surviveability of the concept. STOL runways within the 300m range will be hard and expensive to eliminate, especially if most other parts of the airbase can be hidden and the runways get constantly repaired or previously camouflagged runways suddenly appear for use. That's why Sweden is such a great example of effective naval warfare at astonishing low costs. Having a STOL concept for icy short runways on land combined with large fast ferries would eliminate any carrier requirements in Tierra del Fuego. That saves a lot of money.
The Falklands are well defended, but South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands can fall prey to a ferry with ground forces and the ability to set up difficult to eliminate STOL airfields. It's astonishing, but the 2000km range could be gapped between two such bases one Tierra del Fuego and the other on South Georgia, including a capability to strike at Falklands in between if strikes fly from one base to another and have 1000km strike radius (modern development from the previous 500km). Add to this some aerial refuelling and you got an affordable solution to endanger amphibious ships that stay out at sea unlike last time where you were limited in range.
The Falklands themselves have a very fractured coastline and some mountains that can offer protection against prevailing winds. It might be more difficult, but it shouldn't be impossible to ferry a STOL airfield somewhere near there with ground forces.
So in theory you can save money on a carrier and invest into ferries with some luck in a stealthy surprise attack. The danger of such airfields is the reason why the UK had a large number of Vulcan bombers flying an attack misison prior to the arrival of the fleet.

An aircraft carrier under these circumstances is rather about having an improved surveillance and air defense for a fleet. It makes for one of the cheapest aircraft carriers possible that needs very good stability in rough sea states and high decks + 300m runway. Your idea of a US amphibious warfare ship can be quite suitable if you put the emphasis on amphibious with additional air support.

I highlighted before the problem of rough winds and aircraft size. Going small will certainly not improve that while going slow makes windspeeds a higher fluctuation of airspeed with corresponding drag increase of the already higher drag of small aircrafts. The problem is that the heavier types will have an advantage due to the frequent storms in availability of airpower. Desiging aircraft structures to offset that and be possibly better suited to these conditions will be another challenge that will greatly benefit the Chinese naval, especially carrier, aviation.

The meaning interceptor should not be taken too literally as meaning a very fast long range marching fighter that will outmaneuver anything within the defended airspace. There's a clear trend for increased reliance on information processing of avionics linked to a surveillance network with increasingly longer range missiles. Taking an assassin's mace approach you can create interception without possessing such expensive and capable fighters. It depends on the organization and unpredictability of missile batteries and the current development of long range AWACS killers that can mature into fighter-killer capable missiles.

An idea in a such a low force environment for an affordable "interceptor" would be a method to rapidly fly air defence guided missile batteries and supporting infrastructure around. It must be disassembled into suitable pieces and needs transport aircrafts capable of handling a lot of suboptimal STOL conditions. Nowadays each such battery needs an UAV with good self-defence to help with targeting at minimized exposure of positions that can be used to target back.

If you take the Russian/Chinese cruise missile bomber derivate ideas and make them a flying very long range missile batteries. Altitude combined with the high speed of anti-aircraft missiles do make it a possible interceptor for a low force density environment. Currently, that option is more focused on fighting enemy AWACS. The problem with great power warfare is the lack of space to enact such ideas, requiring to fire across a large space from behind the own line. The Xian H6X variants have a number of air to surface missiles, including anti-ship missiles and antiradiation missiles with very long range of the YJ-12 variants, giving this system a very long range high speed air-to-air variant against fighterswould be very experimental. As a limited design study it would be an interesting attempt for a different kind of interceptor design that relies more on information supremacy than on the airframe with very long strike range. China will likely have an open ear for such a proposal because they try to develop a number of systems that have a chance of an efficient asymmetric approach. At the same time the Xian is large enough to host sophisticated surveillance and EW while being able to fly under rough wheather conditions, making it possible culmination of avionic intense missile truck concepts. fitting these missiles on your usual STOL capable Embraer AWACS aircrafts would massively alter aerial warfare in this region and give the word interceptor a new meaning.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

I think Kurt's ideas are very interesting but I was still thinking more about defending Argentina.
I would go for a defense in great depth because a lot of the country is thinly populated. This costs the enemy time that will be used in the Security Council of the UN.
The idea of basing STOL fields on the coast is very practical. You might have more fields than aircraft and invite an enemy to waste bombs on fields you are not actually using. You might similarly base airfields on rivers or railway lines.
Kurt suggests using aircraft that are relatively slow. That makes possible large scale use of fiber reinforced plastic for large parts of the air frames leading to large savings in weight, which gives an aircraft of given size a greater range, and likely also savings in production and maintenance costs. Developing together with China and Brazil would mean keeping account of the available production plant and a limited investment in new production technology. Such technology might well find application in civil aircraft production ( surely valuable in a large country like Argentina ) as long as it doesn't interfere with the markets Embraer considers its own.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Thanks delft, I was on the offence to claim some almost uninhabited islands with rich natural resources.
On the defence, the first problem is, how does an enemy get aircraft fuel to forward operating bases in order to penetrate into Argentine territory? He can advance all the way with light forces and enact a naval blockade at a staggering price, while the routes from Brazil and possibly Uruguay will be hard to impossible to deny. Except for Brasil that can handle the logistics or a UK maritime expeditionary force there's hardly anyone within sight who can take on Argentina and force her on a serious defence in depth.

This extremely low force density environment limits most warfare between Chile and Argentine to a skirmishing pattern for a few hundred meaningless kilometers in the Andes that can become a neverending story and against a full-blown determined amphibious invasion of the Argentine homeland by a power such as the UK, you need a military genius or an outstanding diplomat. So the only threats for a defence in depth would be the UK and a hypothetical Imperial Brazil. Argentina is a large land with not much more core land to defend than Uruguay. The enemy has overwhelming power and you can only counter it by a pattern of very mobile and evasive forces that conduct a harrassing warfare while the core land is a fortress (look at the Syrian Alawi region) with artillery and missile batteries and whatever heavy army equipment Argentina can field that will be too logistics intense to operate far away from the heartland. The other forces are light and evasive and rely on mobile towed artillery, light tanks and missiles in order to strike at the soft logistics belly of any opponent, plus set some ambushes.
The much ridiculed Iraqi armed forces response to the last US invasion should be reevaluated. They did put a prime emphasize on urban combat, such as Basra and tried their hand at a hidden commando force in their only harbour Umm Qasr. Their plan was to do urban combat in the giant metropole of Baghdad, negating much of the technology cutting edge, and finally they had this great gamble of a sortie with their mechanized forces in a sandstorm (reminds one of Dune) to penetrate the US lines and fight in a bloody melée with much inevitable fratricide, but according to US claims the drones were able to manage that threat.

For Argentina you can add a highly mobile combination of air defense missiles, hidden airfields and aircrafts that give the soft belly attack some punch, plus towed artillery and light tank supported ambushes. The core urban region is unlikely to fall anytime soon in such an event, but it will greatly benefit to train the medium tanks and their supporting infantry for this environment other than being ferried on invasions in places none wants to live. The major problem of defending the heartland will be to maintain a resilent information network, including fighter protection on CAP. CAP in turn benefits from endurance and endurance is best achieveable with slow speed. Networking can likely compensate for the inevitable shortcomings of individual fighter avionics in comparison to the enemy. Argentina, like many other countries of similar capability and standing, soundly neglected the networking issue.

As for exports of cheap aircrafts, make them rugged and dual use military capable and you got the right plane for Africa and much of South America. Market shares with Embraer can be divided by going STOL, rugged, rather as freighters, with more capabilities and cost than the Tucano (to remain the lowest end COIN aircraft) and leaving the passenger transport market to Embraer.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

is an interesting article that highlights problems of a high-low mix of fighters.
In a nutschell: producing the same type of aircraft in high numbers entails cost savings, no matter how expensive and sophisticated a single version is. Producing two types leads to higher production costs per type because of lower product numbers.

The JSF for example tries to create different aircrafts with many common parts in an attempt to achieve some degree of synergy with cost savings of producing these items in very large numbers. In economic theory this is known as . When investing into military hardware you need to consider a limited budget and how you get most bang for the buck, except if you thrive on military Keynesianism. The other way to work around that problem is dual use by developing military hardware with civilian applications such as Embraer does or in the US, military applications for all kinds of civilian developments.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

It’s been a busy few weeks, but I’ve finally had some time to read and re-read your recommendations and commentaries. There are so many items it’s difficult to get them all. However, here goes:

I see the use of (two or possibly three types of) UAV systems in a three tier process. The first being as an autonomous AWAC system that can be used in conjunction with manned AWAC system to fly a protective screen in peace time and as a targeting solution for BVR systems in arm conflict (or to possible carry so BVR missile onboard). The second level would be a UAV system that can locate enemy aircraft on the ground (be it an airbase or improvised airfield) and relay the coordinates to strike aircraft, Surface to surface missile system, or commandos. The third system would be a light UAV for tactical use in small unit formations.

The southern portion of Argentina is cold desert terrain (with the exception of Tierra del Fuego) that is perfect for tank warfare. It would be interesting to see how many units of armour and mechanized infantry the Chileans can get through the passes in the Andes before they are blocked or rendered impassable. This would require the capture of the passes intact in order to funnel men and equipment into Patagonia and Santa Curz, or another option would be an end run with an amphibious landing on the Atlantic coast (which I see as highly improbable). The province of Tierra del Fuego would be combat between low density forces due to terrain and population centres. Heaven help the tank force of TAM if it were to defend against Leopard II. I this situation your prior assessment of utilizing armour ambush tactics and Pucara’s with night-vision equipment to hit enemy strong points and blunt any advance. This as you point out will require passive surveillance and sophisticate logistic group to jam communications and information gathering.

In this scenario the FAA will require an escorting aircraft that protect the COIN aircraft and also operate from remote/rough airstrips (possible sections of highway). In a previous entire you mentioned an “Argentine/Chinese mini-Raptor". What sort of aircraft did you have in mind? Something with BVR defence and WVR dogfighting that can operate from the above mentioned airstrips (or as you previously mentioned mobile airfields, which is a capital idea). It goes without saying that these airfields would be protected by a mobile air-defence system

The A-4AR will not fit that bill. Additionally, they are also stationed in Cordoba, and would likely be the victims of the first strike scenario we discussed earlier. This of course leads us back to first conversation: of a good BVR aircraft, which can dogfight, robust (to handle the cold harsh climates). An aircraft that can be purchased (a la Latin America, another word for second hand or inexpensive). The moneys saved on the purchase should be invested in avionics and data links with AWAC and UAV’s to provide real time situational awareness. I found your suggestion of utilizing Chinese technology and thereby receiving more modern systems rather than purchasing 15-year old (or older) western systems.



Thanks again

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

I agree on UAV, other than some bvr combat equipment for the AWACS version that has longer flight endurance than manned systems, there's little need for armament.

You fight in a low force density environment. it doesn't matter how tough the spearhead is because the game will be played over a long stretch of supply lines. Who is able to secure his presence via enough local stores and supply lines, while the enemy gets exhausted, wins.
A Leopard tank is big, heavy and thirsty and will thus always have fewer numbers or a reduced radius of operations for the same logistics. benefits will be in defense and amphibious assault. In both cases they are vulnerable to artillery, including artillery towed by less armoured vehicles.

Logistics are the issue. You can have as many highways as you want, your military hardware needs fuel, especially airpower needs fuel. If you ferry it via trucks or even do aerial refueling, you have a massive logistic requirement for little return in comparison to all supply lines by ship or train.
Because the war is about endurance and supplies, I take it for a given that other than in the Andes, where war is pointless, it will have naval supply routes that need protection. First of all develop military hardware that can be bolted on civilian ships. Make a contract to lease a batch of civilian ships that are ready to be converted into wartime supply ferries (some of them quite fast) and can be leased for other purposes in peacetime. Your airfields (hidden strips for STOL) and bases will be near the coast because these are the places where fuel can be available in largest quantity. Take coastal harbours and deny them to the enemy and you get a 25:1 advantage in logistics. For millenia transport costs for the same distance and weight were about 25 for land transport, 5 for riverine transport and 1 for sea transport. For bulk transport railways have inserted them slightly above the normal land transport and pipelines are somewhere in the region of riverine transport costs.
Every network starts from a protected base in a harbour. In this harbour you erect a local protection&surveillance against threats, then you add supply-stores, repair shops and fuel-tanks. The repair shops dictate how far and how many ground force vehicles can make sorties from these.
Your enemy will attack bases with commandoes, air strikes and amphibious invasions - the normal tasks of any Argentine force to do themselves or counter. Other than that, a war of attrition, securing routes and intelligence collection will be ongoing in lonesome mountains. Simple UAV can lessen much of the workload of running around in this hostile environment.
From such a harbour you can extend the network to more forward placed bases that help to keep less mobile hardware operational in the hinterland. Existing roads give it more depth, with least power projection benefits, but most flexibility for small posts. Railways are more efficient for bulk transports to larger forward bases that serve for power projection of mostly non-air units. A makeshift pipeline in addition enables more operational mobility, including air units, with mobility serving as a force multiplier.
The most important question for the Argentine military will be "How do I create and maintain working logistics in such a remote region on earth?" A lot of work that doubles as training can be done in peacetime. For railways narrow gauge or monorail will be appropriate choices, look at New Zealand or the (improve it with one iron wheel on the railway track and a car wheel as balance help on a small makeshift strip of road). The faster you can lay a track under war conditions from a harbour to a suitable position in the hinterland, the closer you come to winning the war by logistics.
Modern technology might offer a protective improvement for railways over roads because under these controlled conditions unmanned sytems (less armoured space required) can already constantly run protective patrols with a dual-use gun turret (borrowed from naval warfare), jamming & decoys and supported by aerial surveillance since the Mexican Revolution. Afghanistan highlights the problems of current protection (affordability?) for supply lines with trucks over land. Railways would be suicide in this too densely settled environment with an ongoing insurgency.

There are two types of aircrafts necessary under this environment.
The most common type will be a typical South American COIN aircraft that can serve as another nation's trainer (not necessarily the other way round) and mostly carry bvr missiles with a heavy reliance on a good AWACS system to enable them to carry out that kind of a2a combat.
The second type is the mini-Raptor/Eurofighter that is meant for wvr a2a combat with subsidary refinements for any secondary multirole, mostly electronic warfare. Argentina needs them robust, available with little maintenance, maneuverable and in numbers with good avionics to protect own bases, ground&sea-forces and bomber sorties. Because of the very low force density and difficult supplies, it will be pointless to supercruise, but most necessary to have range and endurance and the ability to also use maneuverability in supersonic environments in combat (dogfights are around the transsonic region).
The Su-47 Berkut is what I suggest, except for its size and costs. It's built with many advantages for a subsonic environment with best subsonic maneuverability and reduced drag - endurance benefit. A not so fast, but more maneuverable fighter can evade bvr attacks and win wvr. The endurance advantage and the lower cruising speed would be a specific feature for low force density environments. You can't run to a safe place with the higher speed (cruise speed is design based with an optimum with minimum friction for a certain speed), so running away will keep the subsonic fighter on the tracks like a bloodhound (remember the Falkland War). That is an importent differences of conditions between South America and the suppliers of used aircrafts that were all designed for much higher combined arms force densities.
If Argentina is capable to design something that fullfills the fighter and the COIN bomber requirements at reasonable costs and ruggedness, even better if in one aircraft-design, they would have something most customers worldwide need. A current trainer design might be a good template to start an own design and suit-designs like the "Libelle" might offer a lot of advantages to use the full g-spectrum. Delft already highlighted how abstaining from much supersonic speed can reduce production costs (with minor effects of much improved stealth).
Take a close look at Sweden, they have very similar conditions and their concept is almost the same as my suggestion. They design a lot of cheap and rugged Gripen aircraft(not going as fast as other fighters of the same generation and with compareably lots of bombload per weight) that cooperate with a powerful green water navy from STOL airfields with interior&coastal waterways, hidden bases and supply dumps. Unfortunately for Argentina, Saab is linked to BAE, but in concepts they have a lot to copycat for you. Did this answer the mini-Raptor question?

Nice article about the basics on the dragonfly/"Libelle"-suit that is currently the best g-suit for fighter pilots because it has the fastest reaction time to g-pressure changes.

This is an excellent technical article in Wikipedia on the aerodynamics of the Eurofighter seen within a context of other fighter's aerodynamics. Such technical, math or natural sciences articles are informative and trolls have little chances of inserting nonsense like in softer science articles, plus it's one of the examples at what German's are best to compilate in information. I don't know how good a translation will be, but it has plenty of useful information.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

How about this???