Low-cost, muti-role aircraft for small militaries

Miragedriver

Miragedriver

Brigadier
Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

There are rumors (I live in the land of rumors) that the Mirage F-1 deal with Spain may be deteriorating and that the Kfir deal is now in strong negotiation.

I truly hope that they elect to acquire a larger number of aircraft. The 30 A-4ARs and (possible) 20 Kfir's in insufficient to patrol the airspace of the world’s 8th largest nation.
 
Miragedriver

Miragedriver

Brigadier
Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

The IAl Bedek-built General Electric J-79-J1E turbojet will be a tremendous improvement in maintenance, fuel consumption reliability and over the SNECMA Atar 09C turbojet. Many of the SNECMA Atar 09C turbojets have been transferred to the Navy as additional spare parts for the Super Etendard fleet
 
Miragedriver

Miragedriver

Brigadier
A low-cost, multi-role fighter needed for smaller militaries

Many countries around the world have lingered on with older aircraft, have just not bothered replacing their retired aircraft, or just haven't got money to invest in upgrading their air force (for whatever reason; political; stupidity or financially bad luck). I have many times wondered why "Western" aircraft manufacturers do not come up with and produce an affordable combat aircraft.
I know a lot of you will say that the Gripen is an affordable "Western" fighter; however the price tag on one is still out of the reach of many nations (especially third world). This is part is due to the advanced technology used in the Gripen. Even an F-16C/D is not the most affordable option for a lot of nations, not to mention many of these Falcons are halfway or approaching the end of their lives.

Would it not be wise to compete with China and produce a cheap, low cost, low tech fighter aircraft to market to market to our third world allies as an alternative to aircraft such as the JF-17 or modern F-7? Yes, I know the JF-17 isn't exactly "low tech" but it is cheaper than the Gripen.

Why not offer an aircraft in the same league as the F-5 (this could have been the F-20) or A-4 in terms of size, payload, cost, range and maintenance. Given the proliferation of modern electronics the technology available now, the capabilities of such and aircraft would be higher than that of its 1970’s and 1980’s counter parts. Granted they would not be in the same league of a 4+ or 5 generation aircraft. However, if it’s for keeping watch of your own airspace and making sure your neighbor does not get cocky.

Some of you may rightfully answer “expensive fighters are an extension of foreign policy”, example: America, they give a lot of money to nations, to buy American weaponry, and in turn, these nations owe the states money (USA gives Poland $2B to buy F-16's, so that $2B goes back to the states, and Poland will owe the USA $2B). If they did develop a cheap fighter for defense for other nations, then that is potential money lost. United States makes a lot of money based on countries owing them, from sales of military equipment.

Then the question becomes with a lot of nations preferring the reliability (and long life) of Western aircraft would it not create an export opportunity for Europe and the US and move into a niche that is being created by the Chinese?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kwaigonegin

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Re: Need for another “peoples fighter” MiG-21 or F-5E type

Miragedriver said:
Many countries around the world have lingered on with older aircraft, have just not bothered replacing their retired aircraft, or just haven't got money to invest in upgrading their air force (for whatever reason; political; stupidity or financially bad luck). I have many times wondered why "Western" aircraft manufacturers do not come up with and produce an affordable combat aircraft.
I know a lot of you will say that the Gripen is an affordable "Western" fighter; however the price tag on one is still out of the reach of many nations (especially third world). This is part is due to the advanced technology used in the Gripen. Even an F-16C/D is not the most affordable option for a lot of nations, not to mention many of these Falcons are halfway or approaching the end of their lives.

Would it not be wise to compete with China and produce a cheap, low cost, low tech fighter aircraft to market to market to our third world allies as an alternative to aircraft such as the JF-17 or modern F-7? Yes, I know the JF-17 isn't exactly "low tech" but it is cheaper than the Gripen.

Why not offer an aircraft in the same league as the F-5 (this could have been the F-20) or A-4 in terms of size, payload, cost, range and maintenance. Given the proliferation of modern electronics the technology available now, the capabilities of such and aircraft would be higher than that of its 1970’s and 1980’s counter parts. Granted they would not be in the same league of a 4+ or 5 generation aircraft. However, if it’s for keeping watch of your own airspace and making sure your neighbor does not get cocky.

Some of you may rightfully answer “expensive fighters are an extension of foreign policy”, example: America, they give a lot of money to nations, to buy American weaponry, and in turn, these nations owe the states money (USA gives Poland $2B to buy F-16's, so that $2B goes back to the states, and Poland will owe the USA $2B). If they did develop a cheap fighter for defense for other nations, then that is potential money lost. United States makes a lot of money based on countries owing them, from sales of military equipment.

Then the question becomes with a lot of nations preferring the reliability (and long life) of Western aircraft would it not create an export opportunity for Europe and the US and move into a niche that is being created by the Chinese?
Click to expand...

Well to be fair as you said it yourself Northrop did make the F-20 which is actually an exceptionally capable low cost fighter but no foreign orders! As a matter a fact one of the reasons why it tanked was because Reagan Administration relaxed the sale of front line fighter (F-16) to oversea nations which opted for it instead of the F-20.

Besides as we all already know a lot of military procurements are rife with political meanderings, kickbacks and corruption. The aircraft performance or ROI are seldom taken into the equation especially when it comes to orders from 3rd world less developed countries.
 
Verum

Verum

Junior Member
Re: Need for another “peoples fighter” MiG-21 or F-5E type

So far FC-1 is the only thing that is cheap enough to be considered to be "people's" fighter. Everything else is close to 100M $US per plane when including service and parts.
Even FC-1 itself still costs around 30-40 million when including parts and service. There's not that many countries out there that has a need for 3rd generation fighter, while also being somewhat too poor to buy better one, but also rich enough to afford a dozen FC-1. Most of these countries that fit the bill are under UN/US sanctions.

That's why FC-1 has received so much praises, but still with zero orders. It's not the plane's fault, it's a great fighter, but it's just isn't born at the right time and the market isn't ready/too late for it.
 
Miragedriver

Miragedriver

Brigadier
Re: Need for another “peoples fighter” MiG-21 or F-5E type

kwaigonegin said:
Well to be fair as you said it yourself Northrop did make the F-20 which is actually an exceptionally capable low cost fighter but no foreign orders! As a matter a fact one of the reasons why it tanked was because Reagan Administration relaxed the sale of front line fighter (F-16) to oversea nations which opted for it instead of the F-20.

Besides as we all already know a lot of military procurements are rife with political meanderings, kickbacks and corruption. The aircraft performance or ROI are seldom taken into the equation especially when it comes to orders from 3rd world less developed countries.
Click to expand...

Very true, and sad also. How long has it been, since the US produced and sold a simpler, less costly fighter solely or mostly for export? Was the F-5E Tiger II (F-20) the last of that kind? I imagine the F-35 will be our last manned fighter anyway? Maybe in future we'll get back to producing more aircraft for export.

Part of me wants to see the Germans or the English coming up with a less costly and solely for export fighter. Both these nations have the ability and testicular fortitude to attempt something like this.
 
kwaigonegin

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Re: Need for another “peoples fighter” MiG-21 or F-5E type

Miragedriver said:
Very true, and sad also. How long has it been, since the US produced and sold a simpler, less costly fighter solely or mostly for export? Was the F-5E Tiger II (F-20) the last of that kind? I imagine the F-35 will be our last manned fighter anyway? Maybe in future we'll get back to producing more aircraft for export.

Part of me wants to see the Germans or the English coming up with a less costly and solely for export fighter. Both these nations have the ability and testicular fortitude to attempt something like this.
Click to expand...

If you ask me I think it all comes down to human nature and 'ego'. Imagined, you're trying to be a good stewart of your country's finances and buy a reasonably good but cheaper fighter based on thorough research and advice but then your less than friendly neighbor buys a top of the line fighter albeit in smaller numbers. Even though you did the right choice your constituents and your political opponents will eat you alive and you'll either be lynch or voted out of the office.. ;)

OTOH if you're a dictator shame on you for buying a lowly fighter when your neighborhood dictator buys a bigger and better aircraft. Surely you can't lose face! Unfortunately it's always the politicians and their cronies who makes the ultimate decisions instead of the technical folks and/or military strategists.

Unfortunately that's how the real world works nowadays.
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
Re: Need for another “peoples fighter” MiG-21 or F-5E type

kwaigonegin said:
If you ask me I think it all comes down to human nature and 'ego'. Imagined, you're trying to be a good stewart of your country's finances and buy a reasonably good but cheaper fighter based on thorough research and advice but then your less than friendly neighbor buys a top of the line fighter albeit in smaller numbers. Even though you did the right choice your constituents and your political opponents will eat you alive and you'll either be lynch or voted out of the office.. ;)

OTOH if you're a dictator shame on you for buying a lowly fighter when your neighborhood dictator buys a bigger and better aircraft. Surely you can't lose face! Unfortunately it's always the politicians and their cronies who makes the ultimate decisions instead of the technical folks and/or military strategists.

Unfortunately that's how the real world works nowadays.
Click to expand...

Well, what would be the purpose of a low-tech fighter anyway? The role of fighters is to fight other fighters (also to shoot down bombers, but those are usually escorted by fighters). Pilots take a long time and are very expensive to train. Why would you risk them in a low-tech fighter?

I think instead of a cheap fighter, it would be better to market cheap UAVs. At least then, you won't be risking your pilots.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: A low-cost, multi-role fighter needed for smaller militaries


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MODERATOR'S INSTRUCTIONS <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
​

Guys, there are four active threads, all started by Miragedriver, that all revolve around the same theme. I have combined all of those into this newer thread that he posted today, and am calling it:

"New low-cost, muti-role aircraft needed for smaller militaries"

The following threads all have their discussions here, and those discussions can all be continued under this umbrella.

- Low cost battlefied Attack Aircraft for smaller militaries
- New life to older aircraft.
- New Interceptors for Argentine Air Force.
- Need for another "People's Fighter," Mig-21 or F-5E type.




>>>>>>>>>>>>>> END MODERATOR'S INSTRUCTIONS <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
​

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
B

B.I.B.

Captain
Re: Need for another “peoples fighter” MiG-21 or F-5E type

solarz said:
Well, what would be the purpose of a low-tech fighter anyway? The role of fighters is to fight other fighters (also to shoot down bombers, but those are usually escorted by fighters). Pilots take a long time and are very expensive to train. Why would you risk them in a low-tech fighter?

I think instead of a cheap fighter, it would be better to market cheap UAVs. At least then, you won't be risking your pilots.
Click to expand...

Is the technology developed enough for one to place complete reliance on UAVs to defend ones airspace?. For one thing how good would the situation awareness be for the UAV operator?.

Just out of interest, is Argentina at odds with any of her neighbours?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top