Argentina fighter competition

art · Fri Sep 16, 2022 11:40 am

Argentina is looking to procure 12 supersonic fighters. A report including the possible contenders was presented to the Chamber of Deputies in the last few days. The report says the requirement is for a supersonic MRCA with in flight refuelling capability, AESA radar, tactical datalink capability, electronic self defence capability and no British components. The 4 contenders are:

JF-17 block 3
Second hand F-16 (needing upgrading to AESA radar and incompatible with Argentinian tankers)
Tejas Mk1A (needing HAL to replace MB ejection seat, Cobham radome and refuelling probe with non-British substitutes)
Su-35

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLH9Qz7WoU

Not an easy choice. I don't see Tejas being price competitive with the changes required, at least not for such a small number. If F-16 cannot be refuelled in flight by Argentina's tankers, that seems to doom it for me. With Russia being subject to heavy sanctions, that puts a question mark over Su-35 for me. So I see JF-17 being the most likely to be selected in the end.

Anyone got an idea of which fighter will turn out the winner?

texl1649 · Fri Sep 16, 2022 2:51 pm

Why are they not able to get any western aircraft? This really goes all the way back to the falklands war in 1982?

I see the JF-17 was rumored to be a done deal a year ago;

https://www.defensenews.com/global/the- ... -warplane/

GDB · Fri Sep 16, 2022 3:10 pm

texl1649 wrote:
Why are they not able to get any western aircraft? This really goes all the way back to the falklands war in 1982?

I see the JF-17 was rumored to be a done deal a year ago;

https://www.defensenews.com/global/the- ... -warplane/

Wouldn't be a problem with UK supplied components, just have to renounce their claim to the islands, or rather over the wishes of the islanders, (over twice as many of them compared to '82).
Can they not ask themselves, where has this obsession got us? What has it got us?
Has it cured the long history of economic defaults, huge corruption, military dictatorship and mass murder which losing the war helped to bring at least an end to that?

aumaverick · Fri Sep 16, 2022 3:34 pm

GDB wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
Why are they not able to get any western aircraft? This really goes all the way back to the falklands war in 1982?

I see the JF-17 was rumored to be a done deal a year ago;

https://www.defensenews.com/global/the- ... -warplane/

Wouldn't be a problem with UK supplied components, just have to renounce their claim to the islands, or rather over the wishes of the islanders, (over twice as many of them compared to '82).
Can they not ask themselves, where has this obsession got us? What has it got us?
Has it cured the long history of economic defaults, huge corruption, military dictatorship and mass murder which losing the war helped to bring at least an end to that?

All that just for the use of 12 MB ejection seats and various ancillary components? Not likely.

art · Fri Sep 16, 2022 3:41 pm

texl1649 wrote:
Why are they not able to get any western aircraft? This really goes all the way back to the falklands war in 1982?

Yes, Gripen is out due to British content. FA-50 the same. Tejas the same. So the 3 cheapest non-Russian or non-Chinese light fighters are not available to Argentina as standard production aircraft. Argentina is blacklisted by the UK because it wants the South Atlantic Islands to become Argentinian whereas the population of the islands does not want to be Argentinian.

I don't think Argentina can buy 12 new western fighters free of UK content with their budget. The budget figure I have seen mentioned is less than $700 million.

Dutchy · Fri Sep 16, 2022 4:38 pm

art wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
Why are they not able to get any western aircraft? This really goes all the way back to the falklands war in 1982?

Yes, Gripen is out due to British content. FA-50 the same. Tejas the same. So the 3 cheapest non-Russian or non-Chinese light fighters are not available to Argentina as standard production aircraft. Argentina is blacklisted by the UK because it wants the South Atlantic Islands to become Argentinian whereas the population of the islands does not want to be Argentinian.

I don't think Argentina can buy 12 new western fighters free of UK content with their budget. The budget figure I have seen mentioned is less than $700 million.

How about second had Mirage 2000? Someone must have some spares left and Argentina could upgrade them.

Francoflier · Fri Sep 16, 2022 5:32 pm

texl1649 wrote:
I see the JF-17 was rumored to be a done deal a year ago;

https://www.defensenews.com/global/the- ... -warplane/

Indeed.
Given Argentina's growing political alignment with China, I'd say the JF-17 is an evidence. To be honest the deal is probable already agreed, they may just need a 'pretend' RFP for good political form.

ThePointblank · Fri Sep 16, 2022 7:37 pm

Dutchy wrote:
art wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
Why are they not able to get any western aircraft? This really goes all the way back to the falklands war in 1982?

Yes, Gripen is out due to British content. FA-50 the same. Tejas the same. So the 3 cheapest non-Russian or non-Chinese light fighters are not available to Argentina as standard production aircraft. Argentina is blacklisted by the UK because it wants the South Atlantic Islands to become Argentinian whereas the population of the islands does not want to be Argentinian.

I don't think Argentina can buy 12 new western fighters free of UK content with their budget. The budget figure I have seen mentioned is less than $700 million.

How about second had Mirage 2000? Someone must have some spares left and Argentina could upgrade them.

It has British Martin Baker ejection seats in them for starters.

art · Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:14 pm

Dutchy wrote:
art wrote:
I don't think Argentina can buy 12 new western fighters free of UK content with their budget. The budget figure I have seen mentioned is less than $700 million.

How about second had Mirage 2000? Someone must have some spares left and Argentina could upgrade them.

There is a problem. According to Wiki, the Mirage 2000 uses a Martin Baker-designed ejection seat:

The pilot sits on a SEM MB Mk10 zero-zero ejection seat (a license-built version of the British Martin-Baker Mark 10).

texl1649 · Fri Sep 16, 2022 9:37 pm

Do they really have an inability to get parts for an ejection seat?

GalaxyFlyer · Fri Sep 16, 2022 10:06 pm

May I ask what possible need is there for Argentina have a dozen marginal fighters? Paraguay isn’t threatening, neither is Uruguay. Chile isn’t coming over the Andes, so what’s the point?

texl1649 · Fri Sep 16, 2022 11:18 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
May I ask what possible need is there for Argentina have a dozen marginal fighters? Paraguay isn’t threatening, neither is Uruguay. Chile isn’t coming over the Andes, so what’s the point?

It’s a pretty huge country. Really, it seems like an inadequate number for the amount of square miles.

ThePointblank · Fri Sep 16, 2022 11:18 pm

texl1649 wrote:
Do they really have an inability to get parts for an ejection seat?

Yep; that stuff is tightly controlled. The British would have veto on anyone selling parts for a Martin Baker ejection seat to Argentina.

GalaxyFlyer · Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:24 am

texl1649 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
May I ask what possible need is there for Argentina have a dozen marginal fighters? Paraguay isn’t threatening, neither is Uruguay. Chile isn’t coming over the Andes, so what’s the point?

It’s a pretty huge country. Really, it seems like an inadequate number for the amount of square miles.

True enough, but the question who is a logical enemy, where is the strategic plan to employ these planes? Argentina is hardly responsible for maintaining the sea lanes in Southern Hemisphere.

steman · Sat Sep 17, 2022 11:08 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
May I ask what possible need is there for Argentina have a dozen marginal fighters? Paraguay isn’t threatening, neither is Uruguay. Chile isn’t coming over the Andes, so what’s the point?

It’s a pretty huge country. Really, it seems like an inadequate number for the amount of square miles.

True enough, but the question who is a logical enemy, where is the strategic plan to employ these planes? Argentina is hardly responsible for maintaining the sea lanes in Southern Hemisphere.

Indeed. Maybe the wisest choice would be to strengthen cooperation with neighboring Countries in order to eliminate potential threats and equip the Air Force with long range patrolling aircraft, SAR platforms and the likes. Something like New Zealand. 12 modern multi-role fighters are expensive to acquire and maintain as well as insufficient if you really want to ensure your airspace is air tight (pun intended).
Unless this is the result of Chinese pressures to have more influence in other parts of the world. I wouldn´t be surprised if high ranking government people in Argentina are being bribed by China to select the JF-17.

LHAM · Sun Sep 18, 2022 8:30 am

steman wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
texl1649 wrote:

It’s a pretty huge country. Really, it seems like an inadequate number for the amount of square miles.

True enough, but the question who is a logical enemy, where is the strategic plan to employ these planes? Argentina is hardly responsible for maintaining the sea lanes in Southern Hemisphere.

Indeed. Maybe the wisest choice would be to strengthen cooperation with neighboring Countries in order to eliminate potential threats and equip the Air Force with long range patrolling aircraft, SAR platforms and the likes. Something like New Zealand. 12 modern multi-role fighters are expensive to acquire and maintain as well as insufficient if you really want to ensure your airspace is air tight (pun intended).
Unless this is the result of Chinese pressures to have more influence in other parts of the world. I wouldn´t be surprised if high ranking government people in Argentina are being bribed by China to select the JF-17.

Well, Argentina still has a territorial dispute with Chile.
They almost went to war over it in the late 70s during he Junta rein, the Beagle conflict. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beagle_conflict#:~:text=The%20Beagle%20conflict%20was%20a,brink%20of%20war%20in%201978.

As of 2021 the dispute is very much alive.
"Chilean president defends territorial claim in spat with Argentina"
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/chilean-president-defends-territorial-claim-spat-with-argentina-2021-09-03/

A full scale war between them though is highly unlikely and even if things escalated to that I don't see what 12 JF-17s would do when Chile has three times as many F-16s

bikerthai · Sun Sep 18, 2022 12:14 pm

LHAM wrote:
when Chile has three times as many F-16s

And now, two operating E-3s.

bt

zululima · Sun Sep 18, 2022 9:54 pm

When the Su-75 Checkmate was revealed, it was noted that Argentina was one of the target markets. It's supposed to be a cheap export product with M1.8 and AESA, but not sure on the refueling. Avionics are supposed to be shared with Su-57, so there should be some form of datalink and electronic defense. I don't think the Su-35 should be considered over the -75 given the budget and requirements of Argentina will likely favor the much smaller, cheaper, and newer jet. I would be shocked if they actually signed and paid for anything in the end though, unless China trade barters or gives JF-17s away at cost to expand their influence.

johns624 · Sun Sep 18, 2022 11:11 pm

Is the new version of the A-B-C d*ck measuring contest going to be fighter planes? Argentina is in 3rd place right now, if it is.

T54A · Mon Sep 19, 2022 11:37 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
May I ask what possible need is there for Argentina have a dozen marginal fighters? Paraguay isn’t threatening, neither is Uruguay. Chile isn’t coming over the Andes, so what’s the point?

It’s a pretty huge country. Really, it seems like an inadequate number for the amount of square miles.

True enough, but the question who is a logical enemy, where is the strategic plan to employ these planes? Argentina is hardly responsible for maintaining the sea lanes in Southern Hemisphere.

It’s also about maintaining a capability over the long term. There might be no threat now, but in 10-20 yrs maybe there is. You can’t ramp up a fast jet strike capability in 6 months. It takes years. Easier to maintain a modest capability as they wish to do.

LyleLanley · Tue Sep 20, 2022 12:05 am

zululima wrote:
When the Su-75 Checkmate was revealed, it was noted that Argentina was one of the target markets. It's supposed to be a cheap export product with M1.8 and AESA, but not sure on the refueling. Avionics are supposed to be shared with Su-57, so there should be some form of datalink and electronic defense. I don't think the Su-35 should be considered over the -75 given the budget and requirements of Argentina will likely favor the much smaller, cheaper, and newer jet. I would be shocked if they actually signed and paid for anything in the end though, unless China trade barters or gives JF-17s away at cost to expand their influence.

How realistic is the future of the Su-75 as a program now, though, considering the extent of the sanctions? The same could be said of the Su-57. Not leading or begging the question, but seriously.

Could it be, that when the extent of the economic damage from this "special military operation" is truly understood, that the Su-57's only operational usage could be from Top Gun 2?

GalaxyFlyer · Tue Sep 20, 2022 1:12 am

T54A wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
texl1649 wrote:

It’s a pretty huge country. Really, it seems like an inadequate number for the amount of square miles.

True enough, but the question who is a logical enemy, where is the strategic plan to employ these planes? Argentina is hardly responsible for maintaining the sea lanes in Southern Hemisphere.

It’s also about maintaining a capability over the long term. There might be no threat now, but in 10-20 yrs maybe there is. You can’t ramp up a fast jet strike capability in 6 months. It takes years. Easier to maintain a modest capability as they wish to do.

Ok, let’s look at South American history—not much real warfare since the Chaco War, 80 years ago. Argentina, with years of fast jet experience, didn’t do too well against a service with better training and planes that was operating 8,000 miles from home. There’s flat-out no need and, given their inflation and economy, any other purchase would be better value for the citizens of Argentina.

Kiwirob · Tue Sep 20, 2022 5:37 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
May I ask what possible need is there for Argentina have a dozen marginal fighters? Paraguay isn’t threatening, neither is Uruguay. Chile isn’t coming over the Andes, so what’s the point?

A lot of countries should ask themselves the same question, ie Belgium, Switzerland, Canada, Portugal......NZ asked that same question decided there was no threat, there still isn't one and dumped the ACF.

Kiwirob · Tue Sep 20, 2022 5:41 am

steman wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
texl1649 wrote:

It’s a pretty huge country. Really, it seems like an inadequate number for the amount of square miles.

True enough, but the question who is a logical enemy, where is the strategic plan to employ these planes? Argentina is hardly responsible for maintaining the sea lanes in Southern Hemisphere.

Indeed. Maybe the wisest choice would be to strengthen cooperation with neighboring Countries in order to eliminate potential threats and equip the Air Force with long range patrolling aircraft, SAR platforms and the likes. Something like New Zealand. 12 modern multi-role fighters are expensive to acquire and maintain as well as insufficient if you really want to ensure your airspace is air tight (pun intended).
Unless this is the result of Chinese pressures to have more influence in other parts of the world. I wouldn´t be surprised if high ranking government people in Argentina are being bribed by China to select the JF-17.

Can I ask why the Chinese would need to bribe them? Chinese and Russian aircraft are the only ones free from British parts and the British veto. Logically Russia probably can't supply anything at the moment so the only realistic provider of a fighter is China.

steman · Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:31 am

Kiwirob wrote:
steman wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

True enough, but the question who is a logical enemy, where is the strategic plan to employ these planes? Argentina is hardly responsible for maintaining the sea lanes in Southern Hemisphere.

Indeed. Maybe the wisest choice would be to strengthen cooperation with neighboring Countries in order to eliminate potential threats and equip the Air Force with long range patrolling aircraft, SAR platforms and the likes. Something like New Zealand. 12 modern multi-role fighters are expensive to acquire and maintain as well as insufficient if you really want to ensure your airspace is air tight (pun intended).
Unless this is the result of Chinese pressures to have more influence in other parts of the world. I wouldn´t be surprised if high ranking government people in Argentina are being bribed by China to select the JF-17.

Can I ask why the Chinese would need to bribe them? Chinese and Russian aircraft are the only ones free from British parts and the British veto. Logically Russia probably can't supply anything at the moment so the only realistic provider of a fighter is China.

I think China might want to bribe Argentinian officials in order to penetrate a market where they have never sold military hardware before (if I´m not wrong). Doesn´t the US see South America as sort of their own backyard, therefore applying pressures on those Countries not to lean towards China or Russia (I am aware of Venezuela and Peru using Russian material)? So I just think that Argentina, while they might consider the JF-17, might need a certain amount of convincing to actually decide to order it. And I don´t put bribery past China. They have little to no qualms into using unconventional methods to gain a foothold in a market and expand their influence.

art · Tue Sep 20, 2022 8:16 am

T54A wrote:
It’s also about maintaining a capability over the long term. There might be no threat now, but in 10-20 yrs maybe there is. You can’t ramp up a fast jet strike capability in 6 months. It takes years. Easier to maintain a modest capability as they wish to do.

Kiwirob wrote:
Chinese and Russian aircraft are the only ones free from British parts and the British veto. Logically Russia probably can't supply anything at the moment so the only realistic provider of a fighter is China.

art · Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:25 am

Just an observation about JF-17: less than half of the airframe of the aircraft aircraft is built in China. Most is built in Pakistan and the assembly line is in Pakistan. Pakistan (not China) has sold JF-17 to Myanmar and Nigeria. If Argentina elected to order JF-17, I think that it would be a Pakistan-Argentina deal. So how does China feature in all this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC/PAC_JF-17_Thunder

ThePointblank · Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:34 am

The JF-17 won't work for Argentina, as it has British components. Notably, the ejection seat is made by Martin Baker.

So unless the Chinese supply a domestic ejection seat, this proposal is also dead in the water.

art · Tue Sep 20, 2022 10:17 am

ThePointblank wrote:
The JF-17 won't work for Argentina, as it has British components. Notably, the ejection seat is made by Martin Baker.

So unless the Chinese supply a domestic ejection seat, this proposal is also dead in the water.

Perhaps M-B seats are used in the export version? If so, it might be easy to swap back to a Chinese seat - if there is one used on the Chinese FC-1 version of the aircraft.

texl1649 · Tue Sep 20, 2022 11:51 am

art wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
The JF-17 won't work for Argentina, as it has British components. Notably, the ejection seat is made by Martin Baker.

So unless the Chinese supply a domestic ejection seat, this proposal is also dead in the water.

Perhaps M-B seats are used in the export version? If so, it might be easy to swap back to a Chinese seat - if there is one used on the Chinese FC-1 version of the aircraft.

Exactly, there was a Chinese indigenous competitor to the MB seat when the latter was chosen. WS-13 engine should at this point be somewhat ‘mature’ I would think as well. As Wikipedia has noted on the ejection seat speculation;

Following a competition in 2008, Martin-Baker was selected over a Chinese firm for the supply of fifty PK16LE ejection seats.

However, the JF-17 may still be subject to UK-scrutiny, since it utilizes the British-origin Martin-Baker PK16LE ejection seat; however, China has reportedly offered the Chinese-origin HTY-5D ejection seat (used on the Chengdu J-10), as a possible diplomatic alternative to the PK16LE.

It sounds like the HTY-5D is ‘heavily influenced by’ the Martin Baker seat in any case;

However, according to Argentine media, this time can be different. In May 2021 Argentine aviation news website Fullaviación.com claimed to have exclusive information that CATIC promised to equip their JF-17s – or FC-1s according to the Chinese designation – with Chinese-made HTY-5D ejection seats, also present on Chengdu J-10 fighter jets.

The aircraft would also be assembled at Área Material Río Cuarto, an Argentine Air Force workshop that maintained fighter jets previously owned by the service. The South American country’s interest in performing at least a part of the production domestically is obvious: not only would that make it less dependent on foreign imports, it would also have a potential to revitalize its own aviation industry.

Famously, the Argentinian aviation plant – Fábrica Argentina de Aviones – is responsible for South America’s first domestically produced jets, and has been at the forefront of the national industry for decades. Recently it stopped manufacturing anything but light trainers, although one of its projects for an advanced fighter jet – the SAIA 90 – came quite close to fruition.

So, there is a high chance that if Argentina strikes a deal for the JF-17/FC-1, the Pakistani involvement in its production will be smaller than usual. Thus, calling it a purchase from Pakistan is not entirely correct.

https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/2895 ... JF-17-jets

https://frontierindia.com/the-argentine ... 4-million/

In any case, it sounds like the HTY-5D would be the seat offered in such a sale.

texl1649 · Tue Sep 20, 2022 1:16 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
T54A wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

True enough, but the question who is a logical enemy, where is the strategic plan to employ these planes? Argentina is hardly responsible for maintaining the sea lanes in Southern Hemisphere.

It’s also about maintaining a capability over the long term. There might be no threat now, but in 10-20 yrs maybe there is. You can’t ramp up a fast jet strike capability in 6 months. It takes years. Easier to maintain a modest capability as they wish to do.

Ok, let’s look at South American history—not much real warfare since the Chaco War, 80 years ago. Argentina, with years of fast jet experience, didn’t do too well against a service with better training and planes that was operating 8,000 miles from home. There’s flat-out no need and, given their inflation and economy, any other purchase would be better value for the citizens of Argentina.

Some implication the threat would be UK Eurofighters over in the Falklands.

https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2021/ ... e-fc-20ce/

Longish twitter thread, but ostensibly/purportedly HAL and the JF-17 team have come up with alternative seats.

https://twitter.com/osinttv/status/1570782997179400193

In a recent report provided by the Chief of Cabinet of Ministers to the Argentine Congress, details were given on the requirements established by the Argentine Air Force and the models studied for its future supersonic multi-role fighter.

Before asking questions to the Chief of Cabinet about the future incorporation of a supersonic fighter for the Argentine Air Force (FAA), deputies of PRO (opposition party to the current Government) made the following diagnosis:

«At present, only a handful of A-4AR aircraft are in limited operational conditions. The aforementioned complement is not even a deterrent, much less sufficient to guarantee the integrity of the vast national territory.

Not only are the current capabilities patently insufficient, but they have also become dangerous for aviators, which could result in invaluable human losses of highly qualified military personnel. The situation of the equipment and its capabilities is serious and dangerous, affects the fundamental function of the force and allows the infringement of national sovereignty.»

Requirements and models considered

Eleven questions were then asked to inquire about the models, requirements and conditions that the FAA established to choose its future supersonic fighter.

The Chief of Staff indicated that the Argentine Air Force established the following requirements:

Multi-role supersonic fighter.
In-flight refueling capability compatible with the FAA’s existing refueling aircraft.
Airborne electronically scanning radar (AESA).
Tactical Data Link capability.
Electronic self-defense capability.
Logistic and temporal potential and projection.
No components of British origin.
Availability (supply) for the use of armament.
The models under evaluation are the following:

JF-17
F-16
HAL TEJAS
MIG-35

It should be noted that second-hand American F-16 fighters such as those offered by the U.S. so far, could not meet the requirements of carrying an AESA radar (unless they are aircraft upgraded to Viper standard) and that they are not compatible with the KC-130H Hercules currently employed by the FAA for in-flight refueling operations. There is also no mention of the Israeli offer for the Kfir.

Source; https://www.aviacionline.com/2022/09/jf ... air-force/

Argentina provides a lot of beef/pork to China (see, the ‘bi-oceanic corridor’ https://youtu.be/FPSOZCNqHdk ), the latter can provide favorable support/payment terms, and I think the ejection seat issue should be resolvable.

https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2021/07/1 ... rnisation/

GalaxyFlyer · Tue Sep 20, 2022 2:30 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
May I ask what possible need is there for Argentina have a dozen marginal fighters? Paraguay isn’t threatening, neither is Uruguay. Chile isn’t coming over the Andes, so what’s the point?

A lot of countries should ask themselves the same question, ie Belgium, Switzerland, Canada, Portugal......NZ asked that same question decided there was no threat, there still isn't one and dumped the ACF.

NZ, I’d agree despite great military aviation history. The others are all part of NATO, and Russia has shown its value.

angad84 · Tue Sep 20, 2022 8:50 pm

texl1649 wrote:
Longish twitter thread, but ostensibly/purportedly HAL and the JF-17 team have come up with alternative seats.

https://twitter.com/osinttv/status/1570782997179400193
[...]
Argentina provides a lot of beef/pork to China (see, the ‘bi-oceanic corridor’ https://youtu.be/FPSOZCNqHdk ), the latter can provide favorable support/payment terms, and I think the ejection seat issue should be resolvable.

https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2021/07/1 ... rnisation/

HAL will probably offer to fit the K-36, an integration, test and certification campaign that someone will have to pay for - and Argentina does not have that kind of spare cash.

Chengdu already has an alternate seat, the domestic HTY-5, that has been flying in the JF-17 for years (albeit not with its primary user, the Pak AF). Myanmar, for instance, uses that seat. I reckon on cost alone this is Chengdu's to lose, but it remains to be seen what Western pressures are brought to bear to keep that from happening.

art · Tue Sep 20, 2022 10:42 pm

angad84 wrote:
HAL will probably offer to fit the K-36, an integration, test and certification campaign that someone will have to pay for - and Argentina does not have that kind of spare cash.

Chengdu already has an alternate seat, the domestic HTY-5, that has been flying in the JF-17 for years (albeit not with its primary user, the Pak AF). Myanmar, for instance, uses that seat. I reckon on cost alone this is Chengdu's to lose, but it remains to be seen what Western pressures are brought to bear to keep that from happening.

HAL has at least 5 problems IMO

MB ejection seat needs to be changed
- providing a substitute will cost money and time

Cobham radome needs to be changed
- the first radome used was made in India but was low performance and replaced with the Cobham higher performance radome. I believe that development of an adequate indigenous radome is under way ie there is no alternative available yet

Cobham refuelling probe needs to be changed
- as far as I know, there is no programme to replace this with an indigenous probe ie no alternative would be available for a long time - years, probably IMO

Tejas Mk1A is still in development
- first production aircraft will not be delivered until 2024

Severely under strength IAF needs all the Tejas Mk1A HAL produces in coming years
- exporting Tejas would probably result in Tejas Mk1A deliveries to IAF being substituted with far more costly foreign fighters

My view is that India is wasting time and money in considering adapting Tejas Mk1A for export to Argentina.

Kiwirob · Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:32 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
May I ask what possible need is there for Argentina have a dozen marginal fighters? Paraguay isn’t threatening, neither is Uruguay. Chile isn’t coming over the Andes, so what’s the point?

A lot of countries should ask themselves the same question, ie Belgium, Switzerland, Canada, Portugal......NZ asked that same question decided there was no threat, there still isn't one and dumped the ACF.

NZ, I’d agree despite great military aviation history. The others are all part of NATO, and Russia has shown its value.

Russia is having a hard time with Ukraine, so why would countries like Belgium, Switzerland, Canada or Portugal need an ACF?

johns624 · Wed Sep 21, 2022 12:48 pm

Canada isn't that far from Russia over the Pole.

Kiwirob · Wed Sep 21, 2022 1:53 pm

johns624 wrote:
Canada isn't that far from Russia over the Pole.

Are they really a threat?

wingman · Wed Sep 21, 2022 2:04 pm

Russia flies long range bombers with fighter escorts right up to Canada's international border every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. It's not easy to engage, monitor or repel these practice runs with Piper Cubs. Wherever the Russian military ventures the unfolding proof from Ukraine dictates that it's best to meet them with your best equipment. Same goes for everyone else you're questioning. No one wants to fall into Russia's orbit of despair and tyranny.

JetBuddy · Wed Sep 21, 2022 3:36 pm

Another good reason for needing fast jets is the ability to scramble and identify or escort aircraft / airliners in their airspace.
Also, having the competency, knowhow and pilots to keep a fighter fleet operable is valuable if something changes in the future. With everything that has happened the last few years, I would not be surprised some crazy dictator shows up in their part of the world. It wouldn't be the first time.

GalaxyFlyer · Wed Sep 21, 2022 9:22 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

A lot of countries should ask themselves the same question, ie Belgium, Switzerland, Canada, Portugal......NZ asked that same question decided there was no threat, there still isn't one and dumped the ACF.

NZ, I’d agree despite great military aviation history. The others are all part of NATO, and Russia has shown its value.

Russia is having a hard time with Ukraine, so why would countries like Belgium, Switzerland, Canada or Portugal need an ACF?

There is a vast gap between Argentine military invasion history and every country in NATO’s history.

johns624 · Wed Sep 21, 2022 9:36 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Canada isn't that far from Russia over the Pole.

Are they really a threat?

They are a threat when you don't consider them a threat and they start throwing their weight around. Didn't you just post recently that it would be a shame if the world ended in nuclear war over Ukraine? That's what happens when you don't consider Russia a threat.

LyleLanley · Wed Sep 21, 2022 11:55 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Canada isn't that far from Russia over the Pole.

Are they really a threat?

To New Zealand? No. To any other country without the extremely unique geographical and geopolitical advantages that New Zealand enjoys? Perhaps.

Next time Russia decides to test Auckland's alert response time you might understand. Oh wait.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
There is a vast gap between Argentine military invasion history and every country in NATO’s history.

^^ This, right here! New Zealand hasn't faced an actual threat since WW2. Quite unlike the rest of NATO.

bikerthai · Thu Sep 22, 2022 1:02 am

johns624 wrote:
Canada isn't that far from Russia over the Pole.

You know, that dynamic may be changing. With the melting of the ice cap, there will be lots more navigable water to defend.

Thus Canada is looking for 20 new MPA. They still don't need a large standing army, but maybe it's time to think about more ships? That's going to get expensive.

bt

stratable · Thu Sep 22, 2022 2:25 am

bikerthai wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Canada isn't that far from Russia over the Pole.

You know, that dynamic may be changing. With the melting of the ice cap, there will be lots more navigable water to defend.

Thus Canada is looking for 20 new MPA. They still don't need a large standing army, but maybe it's time to think about more ships? That's going to get expensive.

bt

Enter the Canadian Surface Combatant. The subs are getting an overhaul, too, but will need replacing (with a larger number?) in the medium-term, too.

johns624 · Thu Sep 22, 2022 11:35 am

bikerthai wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Canada isn't that far from Russia over the Pole.

You know, that dynamic may be changing. With the melting of the ice cap, there will be lots more navigable water to defend.

Thus Canada is looking for 20 new MPA. They still don't need a large standing army, but maybe it's time to think about more ships? That's going to get expensive.

bt

They are building "up to" 15 versions of the RN's Type 26, plus some ice patrol ships.

Kiwirob · Thu Sep 22, 2022 2:45 pm

johns624 wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Canada isn't that far from Russia over the Pole.

You know, that dynamic may be changing. With the melting of the ice cap, there will be lots more navigable water to defend.

Thus Canada is looking for 20 new MPA. They still don't need a large standing army, but maybe it's time to think about more ships? That's going to get expensive.

bt
They are building "up to" 15 versions of the RN's Type 26, plus some ice patrol ships.

There are 6 AOPS for the Navy and 2 for the Coast Guard. 3 have been launched, 3 are under construction, the Coast Guard vessels haven't started construction.

bennett123 · Fri Sep 30, 2022 3:46 pm

T54A wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
texl1649 wrote:

It’s a pretty huge country. Really, it seems like an inadequate number for the amount of square miles.

True enough, but the question who is a logical enemy, where is the strategic plan to employ these planes? Argentina is hardly responsible for maintaining the sea lanes in Southern Hemisphere.

It’s also about maintaining a capability over the long term. There might be no threat now, but in 10-20 yrs maybe there is. You can’t ramp up a fast jet strike capability in 6 months. It takes years. Easier to maintain a modest capability as they wish to do.

Based on that approach all the military need to do is invent a threat. If that fails, then say well in 20 years x could be a threat.

So we all need F22/ICBM or whatever shiny toy they want.

How do you prove that x couldn't be a threat in 20 years.

T54A · Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:20 pm

bennett123 wrote:
T54A wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

True enough, but the question who is a logical enemy, where is the strategic plan to employ these planes? Argentina is hardly responsible for maintaining the sea lanes in Southern Hemisphere.

It’s also about maintaining a capability over the long term. There might be no threat now, but in 10-20 yrs maybe there is. You can’t ramp up a fast jet strike capability in 6 months. It takes years. Easier to maintain a modest capability as they wish to do.

Based on that approach all the military need to do is invent a threat. If that fails, then say well in 20 years x could be a threat.

So we all need F22/ICBM or whatever shiny toy they want.

How do you prove that x couldn't be a threat in 20 years.

That is the whole point of military deterrence. The more prepared your military, the less chance you will need to use it.

johns624 · Sat Oct 01, 2022 5:42 pm

bennett123 wrote:
T54A wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

True enough, but the question who is a logical enemy, where is the strategic plan to employ these planes? Argentina is hardly responsible for maintaining the sea lanes in Southern Hemisphere.

It’s also about maintaining a capability over the long term. There might be no threat now, but in 10-20 yrs maybe there is. You can’t ramp up a fast jet strike capability in 6 months. It takes years. Easier to maintain a modest capability as they wish to do.

Based on that approach all the military need to do is invent a threat. If that fails, then say well in 20 years x could be a threat.

So we all need F22/ICBM or whatever shiny toy they want.

How do you prove that x couldn't be a threat in 20 years.

Then POOF! Putin thinks he's Peter the Great.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net