Low-cost, muti-role aircraft for small militaries

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

I think a critically important factor that has not been mentioned yet is range.

One of the main reasons why Argentina lost the Falklands war was because their aircraft were operating at the very edge of their range. This meant reduced weapons load and loiter time.

The British harriers achieved such a good kill record as much because the FAA fighters had virtually no fuel for air combat once they got on scene as much as down to the all aspect lock on capabilities of the AIM9L.

I am sure the FAA commanders would not have forgotten about that lesson nor have any wish to re-learn it.

That is why I am unsure about the JF17 as the best choice. It may be great, but if it hasn't got the legs, it will ultimately be useless. I suspect one of the main reasons the PLAAF has not bought into the JF17 is reservations about it's range more so than the Russian engine.

If you factor in range and payload, the J10 becomes a far stronger contender.

China has always been willing to offer soft loans or even barter (and Argentinian steaks are well worth the barter! ), and if the PLAAF is looking to switch to the J10B as the new standard, they might just be persuaded to release some J10As and sell them on the cheap as refurbished planes as the Sweds did with the Gripen.

The J10B would be a better match up against the Phoons, but they will probably not come cheap, and you may have to wait to get them as I am sure the PLAAF and PAF would get first dibs on new production aircraft. So that's more reason to try and get second hand J10As.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

It seams that the JF-17 will most likely be the best option for the FAA. However, who knows what the Ministry of Defense will come up with as a replacement for the aging Mirages. Personally I like the way the J-10 looks, and from what I have read in Sino Defense it is a very capable aircraft. PLAAF seams to be quite smitten with the aircraft as well. Another reason why I like the J-10 is the AL-31 turbofan. The powerplant has an excellent reputation for reliability and shear brut force. Additionally it offers the possibility of an upgrade to it’s thrust vectoring cousin the AL-41 and the large airframe provides an advantage for upgrading the avionic ten to fifteen years down the road.

The scenario of purchasing pre-used/refurbished J-10s is an excellent opportunity. It would be interesting to see if something like that could play out. Unfortunately you and I and the other forum member aren’t in charge of national procurement. The PLAAFs mixture of the J-10 and J-11 is actually and excellent way of incorporating the same engine for two different combat aircraft, similar to the F-16 and F-15 mix in the USAF.

To address another statement you presented. I don’t think that the military or the next civilian government will be eyeing the Malvinas. That issue has been put to bed and it would be political and economic suicide for these two nations to go to war. The main adversary of Argentina at the present time is Chile for two rezones. The first is the overlapping claim in the Antarctic, and the second (and most important is that Chile has always wanted the mineral (and petroleum rich) Patagonia for it’s own. So long legs on the combat aircraft is not the current requirement. I would have to say that it is defending again a Chilean attack and having sufficient aircraft to achieve air superiority and have the ability to counter attack.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Miragedriver said:

Excuse my ignorance of the WS-13 turbofan. From what I gather you are saying that there should be no problem with the new engine, and that it should perform as well or better that the RD-33 (in regards to maintenance).
Is the WS-13 based on RD-33 technology, and if so what is the commonality of components between the two?

Click to expand...

Very likely in order to cut cost and save time. WS-13 is indeed mostly based on RD-93 technology but with 10% increase on thrust due to (more superior blade?)some upgrade. It is mention by both PAF air force chief and CAC personnel.

You see WS-10(engine for J-11B and J-10B) and WS-15(engine for J-20) already taken away the top and second priority... WS-13 goes into third place. If PAF want it fast. Then they need to inject more fund into CAC to get intergration done quickly...

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Miragedriver said:

It seams that the JF-17 will most likely be the best option for the FAA. However, who knows what the Ministry of Defense will come up with as a replacement for the aging Mirages. Personally I like the way the J-10 looks, and from what I have read in Sino Defense it is a very capable aircraft. PLAAF seams to be quite smitten with the aircraft as well. Another reason why I like the J-10 is the AL-31 turbofan. The powerplant has an excellent reputation for reliability and shear brut force. Additionally it offers the possibility of an upgrade to it’s thrust vectoring cousin the AL-41 and the large airframe provides an advantage for upgrading the avionic ten to fifteen years down the road.

Click to expand...

J-10 is an excellent aircraft.
think of the "A" version as a F-16A that has better instantaneous turn rate and better high speed characteristics, but less sustained turn and speed bleed in a turn. an agile 3rd gen aircraft with interception in mind. sorta like a dassault delta with less speed bleed in a turn and more nose pointing.

If Argentina is willing to pay for it, it would not have any problem handling the range of task JF-17 has,
as a strike platform it has a shorter legs then JH-7. but then JH-7 will fall apart when trying to dog fight.

combine the air defense and strike roles into J-10s is prob a good way to go too. if FAA think the range of J-10 on a strike mission is a problem then conformal fuel tanks are in the line anyways, and I dont think CAC has any problem qualify them onto the platform- they are usually very good at answering customer requests. especially if they think it can open up the world arms market beyond the mid-eastern-africa market for them.

did you all look at the j-10B version that recently came out? IRST, AESA/PESA, DSI inlet, WS-10 engine.
one thing i noticed is that the rear fuselage did not seem to have too much changes vs the J-10B with AL-31FN. so if a customer wants AL-31FN I don't think it would be any problem to built 10Bs with those engines.

China has a huge "rebuild" factory, essentially a AL-31FN production line in an airforce maintaineus factory. so I don't think engine would be a problem.

all in all it all depends on what argentina wants.


---


for long range over the ocean strike missions,.. J-10 recently was inducted in the PLANAF, the naval aviation arm.
Super Entente was a single engine platform so...

also J-10 enjoys better care-free handling than any fighter in PLAAF/NAF service, better than Su-27/J-11 interm of envelope protection. pilots essentially can pull back full stick and airplane would not go to stall but up to edge of stall aoa.
as far as I understand su-27 has a sort of aoa protection close to a stick pusher. so j-10 is 1 gen ahead of whaever Su-27 got in that area.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

i.e. said:

If Argentina is willing to pay for it, it would not have any problem handling the range of task JF-17 has,
as a strike platform it has a shorter legs then JH-7. but then JH-7 will fall apart when trying to dog fight.

Click to expand...

JH-7 is not that bad at air to air engagements. There are reports of it beating J-8IIs in low altitude engagements.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

plawolf said:

China has always been willing to offer soft loans or even barter (and Argentinian steaks are well worth the barter! ), and if the PLAAF is looking to switch to the J10B as the new standard, they might just be persuaded to release some J10As and sell them on the cheap as refurbished planes as the Sweds did with the Gripen.

The J10B would be a better match up against the Phoons, but they will probably not come cheap, and you may have to wait to get them as I am sure the PLAAF and PAF would get first dibs on new production aircraft. So that's more reason to try and get second hand J10As.

Click to expand...

refurbed J-10As. with a updated radar/EW system and new engines, would be excellent way to go.
but hrry up if anyone wants them because Paks would also like to get them if such an option would open-up.

double likes on the "steak" comment.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

siegecrossbow said:

JH-7 is not that bad at air to air engagements. There are reports of it beating J-8IIs in low altitude engagements.

Click to expand...

low altitude high speed or low altitude low speed?
any one can beat J-8IIs in a low speed engagement. from what I heard that thing is not effective once you get below 200 kcas. especially in roll power. those sharp delta wings tend to have pretty nasty roll-offs when speed is low, that's why when you see the Wang Wei intercept videos you notice at those speeds it is an handfull to fly them.

also after that incident you notice the new versions of J-8IIs were having extra pair of wing fences on outboard right where the ailerons are, starting after 2001 time frame, on top of the 2 pairs they already have. an attempt to correct that problem.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Miragedriver said:

...

The main adversary of Argentina at the present time is Chile for two rezones. The first is the overlapping claim in the Antarctic, and the second (and most important is that Chile has always wanted the mineral (and petroleum rich) Patagonia for it’s own. So long legs on the combat aircraft is not the current requirement. I would have to say that it is defending again a Chilean attack and having sufficient aircraft to achieve air superiority and have the ability to counter attack.

Click to expand...

Can post a map of the said "hot spot"? opportunity to learn.

My sympathize (can't find a better word) to the oldest human disputes anew at this "new era" - which is, border disputes. Can't comment who's right who's wrong over the Patagonia issue. If there were arguablly indigene or some claims over there before? But you might like this fact: In China, for the "For the Unification of the world's people" (man, the slogan was, is and will be, hang on the Tianan men) - China uses the name "Malvinas" in line with Argenita's claim, and never uses the word "Falklands", at all, throughout media and geo-history lessons of schools - you could peek some political insights on this.

Anyway, I would still recommend FC-1 over J-10. Not only more affordable, but also more sustainable. (what's the difference?)

- Mind I say conflicts, esp. border disputes, unless both sides with a child's play mentality, none would "let it go", even after a conflict or war wages and concludes in some way, the "disputes" would always there in despite.

- How you going to "sustain" that, when - you have nothing better than some expensive ass everytime you "have to" response to some mis-conduct of your counterpart's, and bleed your nation's bank account (thus hammer your own nation's overall compete-bility), while, me your competitor, all need to do is to send some pest-sprayer plane over, to "stir you up", from time to time?

FC-1 is simply more sustainable than J-10 to Argetine AF (even you could bought over several J-10 and maintain them for running) - you could "chase off" more "pest-sprayer" in more fronts in more quantity in more occurances, at the same time. - that's how 3rd world country (no offence, China is one of them) fight the fight on their own terms. (rather than bluffed by some fance advertisement like whom depending on fancy gadgets and yet can't do anything right on their own... better not mentioning names)

Those amused by my post, feel free to "like" this post, thanks.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

It’s interesting how the camps are evenly split between the JF-17 and the J-10. Both aircraft have strong points and both have weaknesses in certain areas. Personally I tend to lean more towards the JF-17 since long legs are not as important (no master plan to attack any island group).
What worries me is that the FAA had one of the best fast fighter forces in Latin America up to 25 years ago. However, the continued use of an antiquated Mirage fleet has put the FAA at risk of loosing its ability to operate fighter aircraft. No mater how good the pilot is, if he is training with obsolete equipment he will never be as proficient as the mediocre pilot with a newer (3rd or 4th generation) aircraft. It’s that plain and simple. These old Mirage’s (no mater the upgrades) do not provide the pilot with the same situational awareness of a 3rd or 4th generation fighter. Even if the Mirages are phased out in two years, the FAA will need to purchase aircraft now to do a proper operational transition.
So! Here is the question I will pose to my fellow forum member and arm chair Air Marshall’s.

“If you had 600 million to 750 million over five years just to purchase new combat aircraft (to equipment three fighter squadrons of 18 aircraft each). How would you invest the funds?” This is assuming that there are 2 to 3 AWAC aircraft and that the existing fleet of 34+/- A-4ARs are still flying

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

If you want three full SQs of fighters with that amount of money, I'd say you'd be hard pressed to achieve that even with buying FC-1. For the time being, you could do with aircraft that are stripped of A-G capabilities, as far as that saves any money.
And then you'll have A-4s with western weapons, avionics and engines, and FC-1s with chinese ones, or maybe israeli if possible for little money. Might be easier on the logistics. But there's no real alternative, IMO. For economy reasons, I also believe it should be a single engined fighter.
However, with a limited budget, I favor more cheaper aircraft over a few expensive ones.