Low-cost, muti-role aircraft for small militaries

Miragedriver said:

Very true. Things in Switzerland are expensive, even for Western Europeans. However make believe that a nation such as Brazil adopts this aircraft as its replacement for the F-5E. Labor costs in Brazil are substantially lower than in Switzerland and use of Israeli avionics (manufactured in Brazil) and its own domestic munitions could make the aircraft in the 25 million to 30 million price range.

The advantage would be low maintenance cost, lower procurement cost (domestically made) and a greater number of aircraft could be purchased.

Back to bottling my Grenache

Click to expand...

Compare with Gripen, supposedly planed to be produced in Brazil . Again, engines would have to be imported , avionics would need to be licensed and so would some of the technologies for producing advanced composites . As for weapons, some of them could be domestic but if you want to compete on international stage, you would need to import some of them .

And finally, beside all off that , if you overestimate yourself you may end up with something like Tejas - never ending development story

janjak desalin said:

you sure said a mouthful, right there!
too many developing nations use military equipment more in the service of their regime police/security apparatus than in the service of foreign policy/national security. interestingly, recent history, over the past several decades, has illustrated how poorly internally oriented militaries perform when faced with external challenges.

Click to expand...

This is an excellent point. When a national security apparatus is more concerned with keeping in line defenseless civilians than fighting external, armed, threats, they become quite ineffective when faced with an opponent who can fight back.

solarz said:

This is an excellent point. When a national security apparatus is more concerned with keeping in line defenseless civilians than fighting external, armed, threats, they become quite ineffective when faced with an opponent who can fight back.

Click to expand...

There is a saying in South America that “when the Military becomes the government then the civilians become the enemy”.


Back to bottling my Grenache

I think we may have a winner as an F-5E equivalent

China’s FTC-2000 Upgraded


During the 2012 (Nov. 13-17) in Zhuhai, AVIC unveiled two models of the (Shanying) fighter trainer/attack aircraft. The FTC-2000 is an export variant of the Guizhou JL-9. The two models show that AVIC has made major improvements to the aircraft since 2001 when revelations surfaced that a development program was underway to replace the .

The original FTC-2000, according to the Zhuhai brochure, “can accomplish advanced training of the pilot, conversion training of the 3rd generation fighter and combat training of modified and series aircraft and possesses certain combat capability.”

However, the brochure of the new FTC-2000G (G=modified), adds reconnaissance capabilities to the list. It states the aircraft is a “light multi-purpose aircraft for meeting the demand of training task of fighter pilot as well as tasks of combat and attack in the international market. It has the characteristics of stable performance, strong function, low price, high benefit-ratio, and can accomplish medium/advanced training, tasks of combat and attack. And it can also fulfill combat area reconnaissance and attack impact evaluation with the reconnaissance pod suspended.”

“FTC-2000G appears the latest effort to keep the venerable J-7 () design line alive and available for export to states with very limited defense budgets,” said , senior fellow for military aerospace, UK-based .
“I’ve never been impressed by the FTC-2000, in whatever variant,” said , a defense industry specialist at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, , Singapore.

“It’s an old design (looks like the old Super-7), and getting older by the minute. Yeah, you can put recce pods on it and other things, and I suppose (as a two-seater) you could adapt it for air-to-ground missions,” Bitzinger said. “The Chinese have failed to secure any export sales for the (other than Pakistan, which coproduces it), and I have similar skepticism toward the FTC-2000.”


A quick comparison of the technical data reveals the FTC-2000G has more hard points and is heavier, but now has a shorter endurance time



Back to bottling my Grenache

Well it seems that the Argentine Air Force has announced that it will be decommissioning the A-4AR in 2020 based on a 250 hour per year flight schedule. Mmmmmmm, let’s see, Mirage III/V where to be decommissioned in 2010 and replaced. They were actually decommissioned in late 2014 and no replacement has been selected.

Now the A-4’s (which are pulling double duty) will be decommissioned in 2020, most likely with no replacement in mind (again). Seems as if the only aircraft flying will be the IA-63 Pampa…

I only have one thing to say:



Any Aircraft recommendations? You obviously cannot do any worse than the Ministry of Defense. Do you suggest a single multi-roll type of aircraft, or perhaps two aircraft, one for air-superiority and another less expensive for ground support and strike missions?


Back to bottling my Grenache

I throw in my thoughts. How about 48 to 54 Hongdu L-15 in a single seat configuration (similar nose configuration as the Hawk 200)? This aircraft would be in the same class as an (updated) F-5E and would serve well as a place holder for a better multi roll system. In the interim it can patrol for airspace violations and provide valuable flight hours for FAA pilots.

At that time they can be utilized to replace the A-4AR



Back to bottling my Grenache

This is an example of what I was proposing for a larger radom with the Hawk analogy



Back to bottling my Grenache

Another option would be a single seat version of the FTC-2000G. Basically a much modified MiG-21. With the same avionic suit as the Brazilian (or Chilean) F-5E it would be superior (due to the larger radom and thrust to weight ratio).


Yes I know that this is a model

Advantages: Inexpensive to acquire, inexpensive to maintain and fly, simple engine to maintain, maneuverable, rough field capable, high availability time, can be equipped with updated avionics and have a data link to coordinate with an AWAC of other aircraft, can carries BVR missile, would do very well in WVR combat.

Disadvantages: Old style air-frame, no use of composite materials just a simple aluminum structure , uses an inefficient (fuel) turbojet engine, has short range and endurance, Reaching the end of road design wise, does not have the payload to be multi-roll (2000 kg max) so can only be an air defense aircraft. Improved but still poor cockpit visibility.


Back to bottling my Grenache

I'm not so sure that yet another stop-gap meassure will cut it. It'll only eat up (a few) of the limited resources and provide an excuse to push buying a proper plane further into the future.
It's really a last resort, IMO, of extending the limited capabilities provided by current assets a bit into the future.
An L-15 type can patrol airspace borders, but I think it won't be able to properly defend them even against moderately capable threats.
Which brings us back to the FC-1. And that is really multi-role capable. If possible, I'd like to avoid having two fleets with small numbers for logistical, and in the end, financial reasons.
Again, if stuck in a corner of limited resources and a pressing need to get air-defense & light ground attack capability, the option might be to get 12 FC-1 for AD only and 24 L-15 for interdiction, light ground attack and ASuW.
Plus continuation training.

Per capita GDP of Argentina is actually pretty high, why don't they just buy "normal" jets like Typhoon, Rafael, Mig29, F16, or even J10? They definitely have the money for them.