Low-cost, muti-role aircraft for small militaries

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

MiG-29 said:

Not accurate, Argentina is the 44th best country to live in the world, Argentina is part of the G-20, So basicly Argentina is a very developed country, why? simply Argentina is an agricultural power and too some degree an important industrial nation, however after 1982 and the re-alignment of most of traditional allies of Argentina in Europe with England such as Italy or Spain, and the US policy of only sell F-5s to Latin America or low rated aircraft.

Click to expand...

Actually, Brazil is considering the Super Hornet for their F-X2 program, with Boeing having a cross-marketing agreement with Embraer for their KC-390 programme in the USA, UK and select Middle East markets.

MiG-29 said:

So FADEA which is basicly an aircraft factory and designed in the 1990s even jet aircraft, needs to update its technology.

FADEA once belonged to Lockheed, during the Mennen days, however the company was idle, this was saw by the Kitchners as an attempt of the US to destroy the aircraft industry in Argentina.

Click to expand...

Actually, the agreement with Lockheed had expired, as Lockheed was to only take over the facility for the upgrade of the A-4 Skyhawk's.

The issues with exporting Argentine aircraft when Lockheed was managing the facility was driven by Argentine politics; Lockheed wanted to market a number of aircraft internationally, but Argentine state approval never came or got lost in internal politics.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Pointblank said:

Actually, Brazil is considering the Super Hornet for their F-X2 program, with Boeing having a cross-marketing agreement with Embraer for their KC-390 programme in the USA, UK and select Middle East markets.




Actually, the agreement with Lockheed had expired, as Lockheed was to only take over the facility for the upgrade of the A-4 Skyhawk's.

The issues with exporting Argentine aircraft when Lockheed was managing the facility was driven by Argentine politics; Lockheed wanted to market a number of aircraft internationally, but Argentine state approval never came or got lost in internal politics.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

I think you need to read more Latin american sources to understand Argentina, Lockheed never really tried to improve aviation in Argentina, that is clear, to put you an example, in Mexico GE or MD helicopters make fuselage or jet engine parts, however Lockeed never try it.

Of course the use the excuse Argentina is to blame, the reality is in the 1990s and early 2000s, the West tried to stop Argentina`s aerospace.

Why? Argentina has not relinquished the Malvinas, So Lockheed was in no way going to transfer F-16 technology to South america.

In fact all the south american nations during the 1960s to 1990s could only get the F-5, Brazil and Argentina then opted to get Mirages and later Cuba MiG-23s, this lead to Brazil to join forces with Italy in the AMX and Argentina with Dornier, Argentina made the Pampa.

Peru later opted to buy MiG-29s and this lead to the Venezuelan Su-30s.


Now let me explain you that as a Mexican, the US policy has been in one way a blessing, since we do not have wars like in the Middle east, however technlogically this does not improve the technological advancement of latin America.

Brazil and Mexico have gone for mostly civil aviation, Brazil has Embraer and Mexico has Frisa, Argentina with FADEA wants to catch up, Argentina from the 1920s to 1960s was a leading aviation power.

People usually does not know the aviation tradition Argentina has, Pulqui I and II and IA-63 Pampa are the most know examples.


Is a good idea to build JF-17? to be honest i think is not, i think they should concentrate in civil aerospace because that will lose the restrictions Argentina can get.


Brazil has done that, and Mexico is doing it, the Z-11 is a better program.


In Mexico today we have a lot of aircraft industry and even research in avionics and jet engines, but we work as suppliers.

Brazil has even a more developed industry, they can lead really advanced programs like KC-390 or E-190, however, their real technological level is close to Mexico`s.

Argentina could well build some JF-17s and absorb some technlogy, it will open the door to the east Russia and China, but will the door to the west.

For Argentina the best is become a nation doing joint ventures, and they are doing it with KC-390, Z-11 or their own Pampa, however Argentina`s politicians consider after 1982, the traditional western powers are unwilling to share technology, so they have opted for China.

In Mexico we even make AH-64 Apaches fuselage for Boeing, however we have no tech transfers, only personal trained.

FADEA wants the tech transfers, in my opinion a joint venture with Ukraine in An-148 or China in the C909 is a better option than making JF-17s

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

MiG-29 said:

I think you need to read more Latin american sources to understand Argentina, Lockheed never really tried to improve aviation in Argentina, that is clear, to put you an example, in Mexico GE or MD helicopters make fuselage or jet engine parts, however Lockeed never try it.

Of course the use the excuse Argentina is to blame, the reality is in the 1990s and early 2000s, the West tried to stop Argentina`s aerospace.

Why? Argentina has not relinquished the Malvinas, So Lockheed was in no way going to transfer F-16 technology to South america.

In fact all the south american nations during the 1960s to 1990s could only get the F-5, Brazil and Argentina then opted to get Mirages and later Cuba MiG-23s, this lead to Brazil to join forces with Italy in the AMX and Argentina with Dornier, Argentina made the Pampa.

Peru later opted to buy MiG-29s and this lead to the Venezuelan Su-30s.


Now let me explain you that as a Mexican, the US policy has been in one way a blessing, since we do not have wars like in the Middle east, however technlogically this does not improve the technological advancement of latin America.

Brazil and Mexico have gone for mostly civil aviation, Brazil has Embraer and Mexico has Frisa, Argentina with FADEA wants to catch up, Argentina from the 1920s to 1960s was a leading aviation power.

People usually does not know the aviation tradition Argentina has, Pulqui I and II and IA-63 Pampa are the most know examples.


Is a good idea to build JF-17? to be honest i think is not, i think they should concentrate in civil aerospace because that will lose the restrictions Argentina can get.


Brazil has done that, and Mexico is doing it, the Z-11 is a better program.


In Mexico today we have a lot of aircraft industry and even research in avionics and jet engines, but we work as suppliers.

Brazil has even a more developed industry, they can lead really advanced programs like KC-390 or E-190, however, their real technological level is close to Mexico`s.

Argentina could well build some JF-17s and absorb some technlogy, it will open the door to the east Russia and China, but will the door to the west.

For Argentina the best is become a nation doing joint ventures, and they are doing it with KC-390, Z-11 or their own Pampa, however Argentina`s politicians consider after 1982, the traditional western powers are unwilling to share technology, so they have opted for China.

In Mexico we even make AH-64 Apaches fuselage for Boeing, however we have no tech transfers, only personal trained.

FADEA wants the tech transfers, in my opinion a joint venture with Ukraine in An-148 or China in the C909 is a better option than making JF-17s

Click to expand...

A joint venture with Ukraine doesn't appear to make a lot of sense considering the small number of aircraft involved; the An 140/148 are being considered to replace the F27/F28 series. The setting up of a production line for perhaps 40 or more JF17s, especially if it involves tech transfer, is well worth proceeding with.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

MiG-29 said:

I think you need to read more Latin american sources to understand Argentina, Lockheed never really tried to improve aviation in Argentina, that is clear, to put you an example, in Mexico GE or MD helicopters make fuselage or jet engine parts, however Lockeed never try it.

Of course the use the excuse Argentina is to blame, the reality is in the 1990s and early 2000s, the West tried to stop Argentina`s aerospace.

Why? Argentina has not relinquished the Malvinas, So Lockheed was in no way going to transfer F-16 technology to South america.

Click to expand...

1. Lockheed made a very strong attempt to grow and develop Argentina's aviation industry. For example, Argentina was Lockheed Martin's C-130 MRO facility for South America, and many South American nations sent their C-130's to Argentina for overhaul and repairs because Lockheed Martin developed the local industry there.

2. When Argentine politics goes from one extreme to another, and you are trying to secure government approval to export Argentinian aircraft to foreign users, it really discourages the growth of the industry. Coupled with the lack of domestic market, Lockheed had to refocus their plans as they had pretty significant ambitions with Argentina.

3. Lockheed upgraded Argentina's A-4 Skyhawk's with many avionics and systems from the F-16. Argentina could not afford other aircraft other than more A-4 Skyhawk's, though they did consider purchasing the Mirage 2000 before they realized that the government didn't have the funds.

4. It was highly unlikely that Lockheed Martin was going to produce any F-16's in Argentina or even components; first, Argentina never requested the F-16, and secondly, the F-16 line was winding down as orders were being completed. In fact, from 1994 to 2000, Lockheed Martin production of the F-16 averaged around 65 aircraft per year; a very slow production rate for the Lockheed Martin facility in Fort Worth, TX. During this period of time, production overseas of the F-16 for Turkey and South Korea increased. Orders for the F-16 also show a steady decline, from 117 ordered in 1994 down to 21 in 2000 (with a spike in 1997 of 272 ordered).

MiG-29 said:

In fact all the south american nations during the 1960s to 1990s could only get the F-5, Brazil and Argentina then opted to get Mirages and later Cuba MiG-23s, this lead to Brazil to join forces with Italy in the AMX and Argentina with Dornier, Argentina made the Pampa.

Click to expand...

Many South American nations chose the F-5 because it was a cheap fighter that was heavily subsidized by the US government for export (sometimes given for free). The F-16 later became available for export, but it was a considerably more expensive fighter to purchase. Considering that many South American nations were suffering economically (many South American nations were suffering from economic stagnation, high government debt levels, and low foreign currency reserves), they could not afford the F-16, which was at least 8 to 10 times more expensive than the F-5 (more now).

MiG-29 said:

Peru later opted to buy MiG-29s and this lead to the Venezuelan Su-30s.

Click to expand...

Peru purchased their MiG-29's second hand from Belarus. And Venezuela had political considerations involved in their Su-30 purchase.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Surgeon said:

A joint venture with Ukraine doesn't appear to make a lot of sense considering the small number of aircraft involved; the An 140/148 are being considered to replace the F27/F28 series. The setting up of a production line for perhaps 40 or more JF17s, especially if it involves tech transfer, is well worth proceeding with.

Click to expand...

Probably i did not explained well my point.

The US has a policy of arms control in Latin America, as i said in one way it is really good since it avoids arm races there.

The An-148 makes much more sense as a Latin American since the program is civil.

In Mexico for example we develop jet engine technology for ITP and GE, Frisa aerospace supplies jet engine parts for Pratt & Whitney and R&R.

Since Mexico today is a US ally and mostly makes civil aircraft parts, we recieve lots of investment and many mexican engineers do reserch aerospace products.


If Argentina makes JF-17 only will bring suspitions about the porpuse of such deal.

Plus Argentina won`t make a penny unless they share profits with Chengdu or apply such technologies to domestic products.


Frisa, while unknown by most people, is a supplier of many jet engines, so they are making money, they are not seen as a threat and they work for big engine firms

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Pointblank said:

1.
Peru purchased their MiG-29's second hand from Belarus. And Venezuela had political considerations involved in their Su-30 purchase.

Click to expand...

Look, honestly you do not know the economies of Latin America.

Brazil`s economy is as Large as England`s and Mexico as large as Italy`s.

Brazil ad Mexico do not have a policy designed to invest a lot in weapons.

Brazil invest more as a research and development and in salaries.

Lockheed never tried, simply like that.


To give you and example, in Chihuahua Mexico, several companies make aircraft parts, many americans such as Honeywell for example.
Lockheed never wanted to invest because the Argentine Goverment demands tech transfers, something they are unwilling to give.

In Mexico they do not ask tech transfers so they manufacture, south america is different, they want tech transfers, that is the reason F-X program and Z-11.

You have read a western source, but why do not you quote sources from Argentina?
In Spanish?

Mercosur and UNASUR want to develop their own technology, Mexico does too, but the path is different mexico will do supply while in South America want their own managed programs

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

MiG-29 said:

Look, honestly you do not know the economies of Latin America.

Brazil`s economy is as Large as England`s and Mexico as large as Italy`s.

Click to expand...

Brazil suffered from stagnation and inflation between 1960's to the 1990's, which reached a crisis during the oil shock after 1979, where Brazil had a major balance of payment and trade problem, which created a major foreign debt problem. The IMF had to step in and impose a austerity program on Brazil this time.

Almost the same situation occurred with Mexico; Mexico had a balance of payment problem during this period of time, with Mexico completely draining their foreign reserves during the 1980's which forced the government to devalue the peso, with the resulting hyperinflation problem, which the government created a replacement currency to replace the peso to stem, followed by a bailout by the IMF, the US government, the Canadian government, and BIS. It was only until 1995, where Mexico's economy stabilized and grew.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Pointblank said:

Brazil suffered from stagnation and inflation between 1960's to the 1990's, which reached a crisis during the oil shock after 1979, where Brazil had a major balance of payment and trade problem, which created a major foreign debt problem. The IMF had to step in and impose a austerity program on Brazil this time.

Almost the same situation occurred with Mexico; Mexico had a balance of payment problem during this period of time, with Mexico completely draining their foreign reserves during the 1980's which forced the government to devalue the peso, with the resulting hyperinflation problem, which the government created a replacement currency to replace the peso to stem, followed by a bailout by the IMF, the US government, the Canadian government, and BIS. It was only until 1995, where Mexico's economy stabilized and grew.

Click to expand...

Let me tell you why i completly disagree.


Mexico or Brazil do not invest in weapons for several resons.

1. We have no real threat.
2. We are nations where militarism has no power simply because we have no fought foreign enemies since 1945, basicly WWII
3. The US has kept a policy of do not supply weapons to any nation in Latin America.

Without naming countries i can tell you that there are nations which are poorer than Mexico or Brazil and have more weapons than we do.

We have then focused then in developing more the civil aerospace.
Argentina should focus in that too.

The US has kept more or less Mexico and Brazil under its umbrella, for the same reason in 1968 in Tlatelolco we signed an agreement baning nuclear weapons from Latin america.


the Big 3 of Latin America have acccepted relinquish nuclear weapons for the sake of economic development allowing the US to bear the brunt of the defence of the Americas

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

MiG-29 said:

Let me tell you why i completly disagree.


Mexico or Brazil do not invest in weapons for several resons.

1. We have no real threat.
2. We are nations where militarism has no power simply because we have no fought foreign enemies since 1945, basicly WWII
3. The US has kept a policy of do not supply weapons to any nation in Latin America.

Without naming countries i can tell you that there are nations which are poorer than Mexico or Brazil and have more weapons than we do.

We have then focused then in developing more the civil aerospace.
Argentina should focus in that too.

The US has kept more or less Mexico and Brazil under its umbrella, for the same reason in 1968 in Tlatelolco we signed an agreement baning nuclear weapons from Latin america.


the Big 3 of Latin America have acccepted relinquish nuclear weapons for the sake of economic development allowing the US to bear the brunt of the defence of the Americas

Click to expand...

OT
After the American civil war the US suggested strongly to the French Emperor Napoleon III that the French forces should leave Mexico and they did leave. After that the US has had no opportunity to defend Latin American countries against non-American aggression. But the US often intervened in these countries sometimes to end democracy as in Guatemala in 1954 or in Chili in 1971, sometimes to replace one dictator by another. These interventions happened quite often in my youth but has now become rare. The capture of President Noriega of Panama in 1990 was the last one?

Low Cost Battlefield Attack Aircraft

Modern jet fighters are a financial burden to nations suffering in this global economy, and granted they are necessary to defend you homeland from potential invaders and to project power beyond your borders, but for guerilla warfare—in which the enemy rarely has an air force of his own with which to dogfight—they are often not the correct tool for the job at hand. Additionally, the fluid combat environment also requires close combat support for ground forces. Pilot less drones can help fill the gap. However, sometimes there is no substitute for having a pilot on the scene.

There seems to be a need for low cost battlefield attack aircraft. I not talking about combat trainers that can be pressed into service, such as the L-59, K-9, Hawk, MB-339, and G-4 etc…. I’m talking about a dedicated cheep aircraft that can take off from dirt strips; be field maintained, perform recon, attack mission, forward air missions, etc…


Something that can carry 1500kg of small unguided and guided bombs and guided missiles on under wing hard points–this could be air-to-air missiles like AIM-9 Sidewinders and conceivable additional than-visual range (BVR) AMRAM AIM-120 (if data linked to AWAC UAV’s. This could be used to sweep the low-level skies of enemy helicopter and low level attack aircraft.

The only aircraft that I could find that somewhat fit these rolls are:
1) The Super Tucano used by Brasil, United States, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Indonesia and Senegal.
2) The Pucara used by Argentina and Sri Lanka
3) The OV-10
4) Pilatus PC-21, Switzerland
5) KAI KT-1, South Korea

Any Thoughts gentlemen? Could it be that there are none (few) of these types of aircraft, because there is no money in making them? Is there a need for these aircraft? I believe there is.

Pucara

Super Tucano

OV-10

Pilatus PC-21

KAI K-1