Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?
Thanks for your input. The conflict for which these aircrafts are required is in an extreme low force density(not intensity) environment where the ability to survive and deliver trump speed. A light airframe that takes a slow approach to target with a high bombload in comparison to overall weight at a low stall speed and can fight to survive if required is sufficient and good. The problem are avionics. Using a Chinese airframe can always get you into trouble if you need compatibility with Western derived electronics. The design of the HAL Tejas is compareable to the F-16 or Gripen and has a lot of simplicity advantages as well as a number of problems. Out of these, it's the only one that will operate from carriers and thus the only choice for a country that is small and wants a carrier. Argentina is well advised to make some structural modifications to their Tejas version, but the great simplicity of design achievement India highlights with this fighter pulled me over.
Kurt I’m confused about a certain detail. In a previous posting we talked about the need for a raptor that could engage an F-16 type of aircraft (of course with the use of manned and unmanned AWAC and INT support, which I am in complete agreement) in the BVR realm and also be an agile dogfighter to deter any “trigger happy F-16 jocks”. The only aircraft that come to mind (with the limited knowledge available to me) are the J-10, SU-27 (30&35), SU-47 and the MIg-29. Let’s look at these aircraft individually:
The J-10 would be a great fit, good range, great payload (can also be used for caring more drop tanks), BVR capable, very agile and the Chinese would continue to sell if there was a conflict with Chile or a western supporter adversary. Additionally the Chinese could sell some first production (used) aircraft. J-10's advocates on this forum have claimed that it is equal to a block 30/40+/- F-16. The drawback is that it needs runways, but given its good range they can be held back to allow any strike aircraft to have to penetrate deeper to hit these targets and thereby grant more response time to intercept.
The Mig-29 has a limited range, good payload, BVR capable, very agile and the Russians would continue to sell if there was a conflict with Chile or a western supporter adversary. It would also give a commonality of aircraft with Peru, which would be an allied in any conflict with Chile. The Mig-29 has one advantage that all of the aircraft considered do not have. That is being rough field capable and less expensive to acquire. Granted the payload is reduced when in rough field use, but we are talking dogfight BVR air to air combat, not a heavy strike mission. That job goes to the turboprops (or another aircraft we can review later).
The Su-27 types have an excellent range, excellent payload, very agile, great detection range and the Russians would continue to sell if there was a conflict with Chile or a western supporter adversary. It is more than a match for the F-16. The drawback is that, again, it needs runways, but given its good range they can be held back to allow any strike aircraft to have to penetrate deeper to hit these targets and thereby grant more response time to intercept. Another drawback is cost and support (it is a very large and complex aircraft).
The Su-47 same comments as the S-27 types except that it has a “stealth lite” component as an advantage and an even higher acquisition cost.
I don’t see the Indian LCA as a viable option for several reasons: high acquisition cost, still in the preproduction teething stage, limited range and the GE 404/414 engine which could be embargoed. Then we get into the entire hassle of developing one’s own aircraft. Grated that Argentine could and has done this in the past and FMA could obtain designs from the Chinese or the Russians for a non-competing aircraft design. Then again one could resurrect some other designed which “could” work such as the IAR-95, which would have capabilities similar to the JF-17 (so therefore why not just obtain a license to produce a JF-17); the Novi Avion which could be a very agile aircraft and be a mini Rafale, or maybe work with Brasil on restating the MFT-LF concept. All these “concept” aircraft would require time and monies. Acquiring a license to produce, or assemble from parts and make parts for some of the aircraft mentioned in the beginning would be more economical and expedient. Granted, there is an intangible amount of national pride that is a result of making ones on aircraft. But given the requirements for BVR, dogfighting ability, cost it is better to modify or use existing aircraft available on the market. Additionally if one eliminates USA aircraft and English (including BAE supported products) that leaves you the Chinese, Russians and the French; the French are expensive, and no Mirage 2000 user are selling off their fleet, since it’s still useful.
