Low-cost, muti-role aircraft for small militaries

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Kurt said:

Tphuang I think we do have this conflict because you read much more into my posts than I write.
I consider the LCA airframe an outstanding achievement (simple, light, very few components) and I'm positive on buying it when India is capable of serially producing it. Engine and avionics should come from a different source as I'm not that convinced India will have their own projects ready and running in time.
I have no idea why the Argentine military wants to be able to fight conflicts with their neighbours, but for these they need a floating airfield.
The JF 17 is a very cheap fighter that should not be used against state of the art systems, but otherwise a good investment for poor people who need something flying that is better than a COIN aircraft. Weapons for poor people has been the traditional Chinese claim for their arms exports and they still fill that role pretty well, although also taking an increasing share in higher level systems.



PAF did not get the system contractors they wanted, so they had to settle with what they got. Would you expect the Pakistani military to start complaining about their specially designed for light fighter? As per above it's not clear how much they had to downgrade their demands or wait slightly longer for technical progress to overtake.



Brazil is the most powerful Latin American country. The weapon contracts of the other Latin American countries concern small fish purchases. You are right that I did not explicitly say that major contracts with China will be a problem. Calling that helicopter a "military" joint venture is a borderline issue, just like the European Chinese transport helicopter project.



The trainer is capable of being weaponized and used as a light fighter, part of the job description of almost every jet trainer aircraft. That's why it competes on the light fighter market, especially with the lowest and cheapest level of light fighters such as the JF 17. This article about the Chinese industry reads like a mouthpiece, I have no doubt that they are advancing and closing the gap, but you make too much out of that.

Click to expand...

If you rank JF-17 as low, cheap and non state of art for countries with limited budget, I don't know why you so highly rank of LCA which is overweight, lack angle of attack and even shorter range consider its even small airframe. Worst of all, its has not even reaches it target of IOC.. And all this come from Indian Air force feedback. Its not that we try to badmouth it. You can google it and find out those news. Usually its from hindustan news report so don't see is rival trying to malign or paint it in bad picture.

LCA which uses a far more superior GF404 engine could not even hit its expected target? Remember Gripen which uses the same engine has no problem hitting 2 mach and execute its expect loaded and angle of attack.

As for JF-17 range, during the farnborough Airshow. JF-17 flown all the way from Pakistan to UK with one stop over at UAE only. More or less tally with its slated ferry range of 3000km.

I suppose you read through more of JF-17 thread before your conclusion of this plane. Definitely its still below F-16 Blk 60 in terms of performance and avionics but is not a low unsophiscated combat jet as you think. If you think plane with multi -purposes glass cockpit,datalink, multi-role , capable of firing BVRAAM and drop JADM as low tech plane. then lots of other countries 4th gen equally fall into your low tech category even you beloved overweight, over budget non operational LCA.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Gentleman,

I did not want to raise a firestorm over the issue of an aircraft carrier and the LCA vs. JF-17. Maybe we can put some issues to bed an move on:

The Argentine Navy may have dreams of an aircraft carrier, and still maintains its Naval Air Arm trained to perform carrier landings and takeoffs, but the military as a whole and the political class (currently in power and in the last 10-years) has openly called a carrier as an expensive “toy” and are pushing forward with the submersible plan. Additionally Argentina does not have the resourses to properly operate a carrier. additionally a carrier would be seen as an offensive move by other countries.

Argentina has no ambitions to conquer new territories from its neighbors. On the contrary, it is one neighbor and the UK, which are eying the Antarctic and the overlapping claims. As you may recall Chile assisted the English during the South Atlantic war in 1982. Additionally Chile has always coveted the territories of Tierra del Fuego and Patagonia.
It makes one feel like the Poles between the Russians and the Germans. So with a health dose of paranoia the FAA will need a strategy for defense and offense if its homeland/interests are threatened. Again this is not for a conquest of islands, or neighborly annexation.

The topic was what type of aircraft (modified or unmodified) would best suit the need of the FAA, or Naval Aviation in this century as I outlined in the initial posting of this thread. Either it’s a mix of aircraft, or a single model (preferred).

I just don’t what this thread to deteriorate into angry postings.

Thank you,

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Let's start this positive. What requirements does Argentina see for their future fighters?

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Regardless of the fact of if Argentina needs/desires/dreams of an aircraft carrier we must ask why? Is it to have flexibility and the need for airfield in the event of hostilities? Many of you are under the impression that all the aircraft are based around Buenos Aires. This is not true. The FAA operates many airbases and airfields throughout the nation. With the main ones being in Cordoba, Tandil and San Juan. However, just for fun I have listed the airbases and airfields, which are operational in the southern provinces. They are as follows:

Tierra del Fuego:
Ushuaia – airbase
Rio Grande – airfield

Santa Cruz:
Rio Gallegos – airbase

Cubut:
Comodoro Rivadavia – airbase

Rio Negro:
San Carlos de Bariloche – airport

Additionally there are many small private airstrips that can me utilized for military activities by STOL and COIN aircraft. In fact there is one operational squadron station at Rio Gallegos year round, and a Naval aviation element (half a squadron of super Etendards stationed) at Ushuaia during parts of the year.

If you see a map of the country you will be able to locate these cities and see that they have good coverage of southern Chile and Cape Horn.

Back to the topic at hand which is a good combat aircraft that can defend the nation into the 21st century, have ability to grow (with updated avionics) and will not be subject to embargos or with too many political strings attached. Hopefully one aircraft, or two with they utilize the same engine. The strike mission can be done by COIN aircraft and the A-4AR

Thank you all for your insightful knowledge.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Kurt said:

Let's start this positive. What requirements does Argentina see for their future fighters?

Click to expand...

The topic was what type of aircraft (modified or unmodified) would best suit the need of the FAA, or Naval Aviation in this century as I outlined in the initial posting of this thread. Either it’s a mix of aircraft, or a single model (preferred) that can defend the nation into the 21st century, have ability to grow (with updated avionics) and will not be subject to embargos or with too many political strings attached. Hopefully one aircraft, or two with they utilize the same engine. The strike mission can be done by COIN aircraft and the remaining A-4AR

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Kurt, we never had the opportunity to review why you thought the MiG-29 was a bad choice. Personally I would prefer some used J-10s from China. But lets suppose that Russia came in with a good deal on some surpluses/low hour Mig-29s. These aircraft have the ability to be good multi-roll aircraft (granted not as good as the western types), but they have some advantages that we talked about before. Namely, agile dogfighter, rough field capable, commonality with Peru’s Air Force and they have the agility to grow with upgrades.
If the parts and support are an issue with Russia, but as The Germans did they aquired 20+ aircraft from former East Germany along with 30+ engines. I’m sure the Indians would good suppliers of hardware. Additionally there are so many discarded Mig-29s that parts wouldn't be the problem. It would be the additional maintenance they require.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Miragedriver said:

Kurt, we never had the opportunity to review why you thought the MiG-29 was a bad choice. Personally I would prefer some used J-10s from China. But lets suppose that Russia came in with a good deal on some surpluses/low hour Mig-29s. These aircraft have the ability to be good multi-roll aircraft (granted not as good as the western types), but they have some advantages that we talked about before. Namely, agile dogfighter, rough field capable, commonality with Peru’s Air Force and they have the agility to grow with upgrades.
If the parts and support are an issue with Russia, but as The Germans did they aquired 20+ aircraft from former East Germany along with 30+ engines. I’m sure the Indians would good suppliers of hardware. Additionally there are so many discarded Mig-29s that parts wouldn't be the problem. It would be the additional maintenance they require.

Click to expand...

The MiG 29 weighs as much as the Eurofighter without fuel and stuff. It has Russian engines that need a lot of fuel for less thrust than Western engine designs. This aircraft delivers the loads of a contemporary light fighter at the costs of a medium fighter in fuel and maintenance of twin engines. The evaluations of the German MiG 29 in the USA established them as outstanding fighter aircrafts. Both the NVA and Czech MiG 29 are now in Poland and can be counted among the best available. These aircrafts would do fine as relatively pure fighters, but training with them will be a tad expensive as outlined above.
Other than the usual suspects Russia, India and Israel, Czechia, Slovakia and to some degree Germany could be sources of systems for these aircrafts. The Czechs and East Germans were among the most sophisticated militaries of the Warsaw Pact. Some of their old manpower, stuff and ideas is still preserved in small technology companies.
If investing into the MiG 29 it should be seen as an investment into a capable fighter that usually needs a more multirole complement. The hidden costs of a pure fighter is serving as an escort for a compareable bomber and per strike delivery you fly a lot of weight with drag per little overall payload delivered by the necessary number of aircrafts that have to be organized into a strike group. All that requires lots of time and manhours in the air and on the ground to solve a task that a fighter-bomber does in one go with much less fuzz. As Argentina lacks things to bomb in numbers concentrated in any place this perceived bombload inefficiency would not as much of a problem. Unlike a better fighter-bomber, it would politically signal a more defensive orientation focused on air supremacy.

First, I'd upgrade the engines to current standards of fuel efficiency and maintenance requirements and that is the foremost problem of Russian designs. Second, I'd look for options to make the airframe lighter and less complex by introducing glued composites for example. These two measures increase the initial investment, but lower the labour intense costs during the aircraft's lifespan, allowing for cheaper and thus more pilot training hours that make such a system really effective. The third request will be the avionics upgrade after it has been established that training is affordable.
The Indian version of the MiG 29 sounds like one of the best choices on the market as it is to some degree being tested against the F-16. The Indians do have a naval version and I would bet that the Argentine navy wants some of these in order to keep at least training until the X-mas carrier arrives (my bet is on the smallest possible Indo-Russian future STOBAR design). There are many aircraft parts available on the international market and at least the Latin American nations Peru and Cuba should be counted as reliable partners in a contingency.

In the ideas department I'd shelf a request for a very large conformal fuel tank out of composite material that doesn't stand out as a radar reflection beacon because this aircraft will almost always operate with such a tank that needs to be dropped in a fighter emergency. Conformal tanks would allow for more weapons under less wingload, while external tanks are the less complicated problem to solve. The higher investment into conformal fuel tanks will likely pay off because all other operators have the same range and payload problem that is currently not well solved with conformal and external tanks in a still limited range interceptor role.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

my bet is on the smallest possible Indo-Russian future STOBAR design

Click to expand...

My bet is the third Brazilian build flattop, a good while down the road when the Argentinian economy should be a lot stronger.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

The recommendations that you presented where along the line of what I was thinking, concerning upgrades. The J-10 has less of a combat radius, ferry range and thrust to weight ratio. The J-10 does however have a better wing loading, which is indicative of agility. Although it is wishful thinking I don’t see the Chinese selling some of their first production batch.
Unfortunately there are not to many alternatives available that are “off the shelf” existing aircraft available on the used market. Really what is available in the market?

1) JAS-39 Gripen, South Africa replaced its entire Mirage fleet with the JAS-39. Very nice aircraft, but it has British Avionics/Radar, and they own an interest in Saab so that eliminates the JAS-39 from the picture

2) The Mig-29 seems to be the best option thus far as to a used aircraft with low hours that can be modified to meet the requirements of the FAA.

3) The Su-27/30 would be the preferred option. However it is a large and complicated aircraft, and if the Mig-29 is already at the high end of operation cost then this really places the SU-27 types out of the realm of possibilities.

4) I’ve always had a soft spot for the F-18 and I believe as mentioned before the requirements of the FAA are very similar to those of Canada. The FAA has also preferred (when purchasing aircraft from the US) to obtain naval aircraft. This is because of their robust nature and overall reliability. In order to obtain F-18s Argentina would need to continue its UN involvement, tow the line in US foreign policy and negotiate any disputes. However, if Argentine “towed the line” if could help make the USA a broker in any Antarctic disputes. Conversely there is no guaranty that the results of such a brokerage would be favorable.

5) The F-16 was rejected because of runway debris (an unlikely story). Since the same excuse could be used for the J-10, and there is no problem with runway debris

6) The Rafale was rejected because there would be no technology transfer and it’s too expensive.

7) The J-10 could be an option if China were to sell the first batch of used aircraft

8) The Spanish Mirage F-1’s were rejected because of the airframe fatigue. This was intended as an interim solution to buy some more time to find a real replacement.

9) The Jordanian Mirage F-1’s (that deal has been dragged out way too long and is now DOA).

10) Which leaves us with the Mirage 2000, but nobody will sell them since they’re still useful.

11) am I missing one?

Getting back to the Mig-29.One reason the many reasons why the IA-63 was placed back in production was to retain the skilled personnel that are employed by and to provide the Air Force and aircraft that the pilots can fly which is inexpensive and fill the gap of flight hours.
With all the experience the FadeA personnel and FAA personnel have maintaining the fleet of “museum vintage” Mirage III types flying, maybe they should consider acquiring the Atlas Carver plans from South Africa. And developing this in conjunction with Brasil (since Brasil has still not moved forward with its fighter selection). This would help reduce design time, introduction time and acquisition costs.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

delft said:

My bet is the third Brazilian build flattop, a good while down the road when the Argentinian economy should be a lot stronger.

Click to expand...

Brasil has an excellent ship building industry, additionally many Argentine skilled shipyard workers moved to Brasil after the 2000 economic crisis. Brasil could easily build is own carrier (using a Korean, Russian/Indian design). Brazil postion as the super power in Latin America, it could also use two carriers. It is not out of the realm of possibilities to have Brasil and Argentina jointly operate a carrier, since some of the Super Etendards are frequently stationed on the São Paulo and both nations have knowledge of naval aviation.