Low-cost, muti-role aircraft for small militaries

The MiG Corporation has some interesting upgrades for the MiG-23:



16 single seat MiG-23 in the MiG-23-98 package for around $US100M, customer supplies the aircraft. If the Russians supply it you can figure around $US4M each (based on Sri Lanka’s purchase). That work out to $US9.5M per aircraft if purchased entirely from the Russians. This provides an inexpensive and good second-tier fighter platform. These aircraft could be utilized to fill any holes in air defense , slash and dash attacks and handle some lite air to ground duties, all for about the cost of 3 new fighters.

How about the Russian Yak-130. Anyone know its cost?

Jeff Head said:

How about the Russian Yak-130. Anyone know its cost?

​

Click to expand...

Hi Jeff,

From most of the articles available on the Internet and foreign sale, the price seems to be around $us15M. However, I suspect that this is the flyaway cost and not all-inclusive cost with support equipment, training and maintenance.

This aircraft can defiantly carry a heavy load like the Hawk 200, however it is definitely less expensive than the Hawk or the M-346.

Miragedriver said:

Hi Jeff,

From most of the articles available on the Internet and foreign sale, the price seems to be around $us15M. However, I suspect that this is the flyaway cost and not all-inclusive cost with support equipment, training and maintenance.

This aircraft can defiantly carry a heavy load like the Hawk 200, however it is definitely less expensive than the Hawk or the M-346.

Click to expand...

But it can be use for both training and as a fighter aircraft at the same time. That would cut cost on the need to obtain specific fighter for training only.

Equation said:

But it can be use for both training and as a fighter aircraft at the same time. That would cut cost on the need to obtain specific fighter for training only.

Click to expand...

Agreed. That and just an inexpensive aircraft to patrol the borders.

Jeff Head said:

How about the Russian Yak-130. Anyone know its cost?

Click to expand...

Jeff,
This site has some prices associated with military and commercial aircraft.

Equation said:

But it can be use for both training and as a fighter aircraft at the same time. That would cut cost on the need to obtain specific fighter for training only.

Click to expand...

Subsonic aircraft are less then ideal for guarding air space, even in peacetime . Imagine UFO doing 900km/h at 10000m (standard speed and height of passenger jets) . By the time your Yak-130 or similar gets there it would be too late . That is way you still have Mig-21 and derivatives flying around .

thunderchief said:

Subsonic aircraft are less then ideal for guarding air space, even in peacetime . Imagine UFO doing 900km/h at 10000m (standard speed and height of passenger jets) . By the time your Yak-130 or similar gets there it would be too late . That is way you still have Mig-21 and derivatives flying around .

Click to expand...

That is probably why the FTC-2000G will achieve sales as MiG-21 replacements. Since one still requires a cheap point defence/patrol the airspace fighter. I would not put it up against a 4th or grater generation aircraft, but for the above mentioned roll and to provide cheap flight hours it’s a good alternative.

The idea is straightforward and appealing: A light, armed aircraft, equipped with basic sensors and weapons – affordable, nimble, and flexible – can become a player for any air force in counterinsurgency (COIN) Role. These small aircraft can carry a good punch to. Air to ground support in places like Iraq and Afghanistan can be carried out without breaking the budget. The US air force could fly the aircraft in these combat zones. More importantly, because of the simplicity of the aircraft, the US air force can train airmen in partner nations to fly it and, thus, to defend themselves, eventually without U.S. airmen, or boots on the ground.

The value of supporting ground forces has always existed, ever since man began to utilize aircraft in combat. However these aircraft really began to come into their own during the Vietnam War. Counter-insurgency missions were flown by existing aeroplanes and helicopters hastily adapted for the role, most notably the Douglas A-1 Skyraider. Later, more specialized counter-insurgency (or COIN) aircraft began to appear, such as:


• AT-6 (USA)
• Britten-Norman Defender (UK)
• BAC Strikemaster (UK)
• Cessna A-37 Dragonfly (USA)
• Cessna O-2 Skymaster (USA)
• Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano (Brazil)
• FMA IA 58 Pucará (Argentina)
• Pilatus PC-21 (Switzerland)
• Rockwell OV-10 Bronco (USA)
• Soko J-20 Kraguj (Yugoslavia)
• US Aircraft A-67 (USA)
• UTVA Kobac (Serbia)
• TAI Hürkuş (Turkey)

For an aircraft - whether fixed-wing and helicopter - to successfully carry out all these roles, it should have such qualities as low loitering speed, long endurance, simplicity in maintenance, and the capability to make short (or vertical) take-offs and landings from rough front-line airstrips. Since there losses could be high it is important that they be inexpensive to acquire and not restricted in use as are multimillion dollar jet aircraft.

Any thoughts?

did we not already have a thread for this?