Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?
It seems like the Tejas will never really “get its act together” additionally the GE404/414 engine could be a problem with possible sanctions.
If we are talking small combat aircraft then the JF-17 could counter the F-16 to a certain extent.
Based upon an early post we discussed the Mig-29 K/M version but the Su27/33 would be a better bet. This is what I suggested in the upgraded Mig-29. I mentioned this one because of the rough field capability over the Su-27/33. Some type of superiority fighter is required to counter the F-16. As a novice to aviation strategy and force mix (I do not have your level of knowledge or information) I am having difficulty understanding your concept. I comprehend that you made a recommendation for high-end raptors, but I do not understand the LCA you are proposing that is an existing commodity in present day. Not a probable aircraft that could be developed and utilized with outside help. But an existing aircraft that could be co produced under license, or assembled from parts and modified to meet the local requirements of low density combat in high ECM electronic environment
The low-density force could be an indigenous cooperation with Brasil on the MFT-LF. The strike element can be a mix of IA-58 and the Tucano.
Sorry its late and my English is deteriorating.
As for the JF-17 some characteristics are exaggerated in wiki (if that is your source). It's in the same action range as the Tejas and Gripen due to the construction inherent characteristics, but on the lower end in power per weight due to a weak engine. Even in price range it does reflect the Tejas and is about half a Gripen.
I do lack data for exact evaluation, that must be done by fighter pilots, but I can boil it down to a suitable light fighter as the necessary limited bombload is bought cheaper by other means. There are no technical reasons against a JF-17, only fear of political repercussions and I'm in no position to know enough in order to correctly judge on that.
The Su-27 was an earlier conclusion when I had not fully delved into the logistic problems of a limited and remote war from Argentine defensive requirements of their core. I still had my mind tuned to European and Asian conditions where we sit core to core and fight from and for these. With better supply lines the range and capability of the Su-27 makes sense, especially if you have oilfields and crude processing capability like Venezuela. From this earlier posts I carried on with the electronic warfare, fighter-capability, action range, naval aircraft- and STOL requirements, but finding out the logistic problems convinced me that I had to modify my opinion concerning the weight class and only the light types were viable options in a mix with heavy COIN-aircraft bombers (range, load and weather), not something as heavyweight as a Flanker.
The Raptor is haunting me. Look at a map, the distances are vast and the forces are tiny that does create low force density with only a few soldiers spotted all over the landscape in surviveable equipped groups. That's characteristic for all of Latin America and the reason why COIN-aircrafts are their choice. What I tried to suggest is a mix of Pucara-level bombers (the very cheap JSF replacement) as a low part to a high part that works as interoperational protective fighter the "so-called-mini-Raptor" for Argentina. The core requirement for the fighters and the bombers to be able to mix is interoperational cruising speed. Additionally, the force should be networked with the bombers serving as missile trucks and target acquisition through the superior avionics of the fighter. A two seater version of the fighter spersed in between will help with data processing for the whole flying group.
For example: 3 single seat fighters, 1 twin seat fighter helping with data processing for the group(electronic warfare, target solutions and such) and 8 single seat bombers could form a group of twelve with an action radius of 500+ km.
The more kilometers the better, because targets are spread out and the F-16 has a 500km reach. The single seat bombers cruise close to their maximum speed and slow down to engage in ground combat while having low transport costs for the ordnance. That significantly ups the bombload while keeping costs lower than for a big bomber of which just 4-6 could carry out the same mission.
Unlike you, I'm not convinced that India can be dismissed just like that. While China does have good stuff, it has one major drawback for a weapon importer: They are embargoed. A major import from China can backfire by hazardizing the supply lines for all Western supplied equipment, a proposition Argentina can never afford. For these political reasons China is a most questionable source for major military investments. They are a suitable source for weapons subsummized under assassin's mace area denial and some electronics. Using a Chinese airframe requires at least indigenous manufacture and a tacit US-approval.
China can have the best engineers in the world, but a small country like Argentina can not risk the lead in buying Chinese stuff when they are under scrunity of two conflicts with good US allies like UK and Chile. If Brazil buys Chinese and Argentina bandwaggons things are OK, but never on their own.
Concerning India and the Tejas, you have to realize that the journalists reporting about the Tejas lack some basic knowledge about India. The Indians never say no, are very polite and never admit to seeing problems, especially to foreigners. Still they got their act together and developed the Tejas, an outstanding design, although I'd modify the air inlets for lower observeability and less pressure reduction. It's normal that every Indian aircraft will face a staggering report of problems in foreign news journals that per ounce of aircraft weight outperforms the JSF. That doesn't mean it won't fly.
Argentina still has lots of time and might even buy the Tejas design (that is outstanding!) for indigenuos airframe construction with Israeli supplied avionics and a free market engine. Building at home does have a major impact on strength as you can do it on your own with less recourse to supply dependence (that haunts Iran for example). The monetary export for acquisition gets much reduced and the labour skills at home are brought to a higher level. Both measures increase the defenseability of a land and require different calculations of costs as much of the investments into these machines will be paid back via taxes of the workers when building and after construction due to higher skill level reflecting ongoing other employments.