FedaykinYes it is certainly an uncomfortable situation, to my eyes Greece has over the last few years has made some rather unsustainable defence procurement decisions in an attempt to keep up with the growing regional power Turkey.
Considering Turkey has weathered the global financial crisis very well it is in a far better position to sustain its defence procurment and modernisation program.
FedaykinOn a similar vein how much equipment was purchased on credit? If Greece can’t meet the payments what kind of legal redress do the suppliers have getting it back?
FedaykinInteresting video that and he certainly doesn’t pull any punches with criticism of the aircraft or program when he see’s it. He clearly points out converting an airforce type to naval operations is not an ideal solution.
The bit about the characteristics of undercarriage failure on the Ski Jump was fascinating. I didn’t know most failures were in extension rather then compression. I suppose the sudden change from compression to extension off the end of the ramp presents a significant shock to the structures involved in the airframe, then again he did spend much time talking about how the undercarriage is over engineered. As a side note it will be interesting to see how the F35B performs when it is tested off the Ski Jump at NAS Patuxent.
Interesting to note that they are using American procedures as far as possible for their flight operations off the new carriers.
FedaykinI would be 99.99% certain that they would be factory fresh Block III Apache. Unless India specified it is interested in overhauled airframes the deal would be drawn up for new Apache.
The 900 or so being overhauled are the property of the US Army, they are government furnished components in effect and a way of saving money for the US DOD. For some of them to go to India would result in a shortfall of US Army airframes unless they were prepared to pay for some extra new airframes.
Slipping an extra 22 airframes onto the new build schedule would be no big deal for Boeing, if necessary they could take them from the build allocation for the US Army bumping them down as a customer. This has been done more then once with US Airforce C17 in build with production slots being transferred to export customers. US Airforce still gets C17 albeit with a delay, considering the huge number of C17 and Apache in US service this is no big deal.
FedaykinOf course the real question now is what effect will the financial crisis have on Greek defence procurement.
FedaykinWhilst I don’t know the full details of the dispute I do get a feeling it has similarities with the British Airways dispute.
In the end like British Airways they have decided to go for the nuclear option (or in this case thermo nuclear) and take the financial hit to gain a win over the unions.
Now whilst I am a firm believer in workers rights this is a situation that has been building for a while in the old large airlines. They are no longer state sponsered monopolies that were also in a price fixing cabal with each other. They now have to compete with younger airlines who charge much less and don’t give the kind of perks and pay conditions of the old airlines. Certainly a sad situation especially for the workers but the other option is the airline going belly up!
Fedaykin60% is a joke and should not be taken seriously …But I am sure Dassault’s offer will be far more interesting . It is simply more efficient for India to deal with one country and one company instead of four countries.
If India purchased Typhoon they would NOT be dealing with four individual countries! This is a myth that is constantly perpetuated by the Rafale fanboy brigade! Just like with the Rafale and its manufacturer Dassault, India if it purchased the Typhoon would be dealing with its manufacturer Eurofighter GMBH. That it is a multinational company has no bearing on the relationship that would be had with the Indian airforce. The contract is WITH THE COMPANY not the partner nations or sub contractors just the same as with Rafale.
FedaykinWell I don’t think any of us are in doubt that Prince of Wales will get the first catapult set but I’m actually now starting to see some advantages in it working that way.
The way I see it working out as long as the Royal Navy can dodge the bullet in 2015 SSDR of QE being sold is this:
QE stands up as effectively a super helicopter carrier allowing Ocean to retire (or sold of they could find a buyer for what will be a knackered ship).
QE operates for a few years in the LPH role whilst PoW is finished, in the meantime deck hands and pilots start rotating to the US and France to start increasing CATOBAR experience.
PoW is finished and crew from QE is transfered.
QE goes into mothballs whilst PoW starts a very long work up.
New contracts signed and QE is towed into Rosyth (or other yard) to start tear down and rebuild into CATOBAR carrier thus keeping British ship yards busy – this will take several years.
2030ish PoW gets towed into dockyard for deep overhaul and crew transfer to a newly converted QE.
After that point ships are rotated as was the original plan.
For me thats the ideal solution for the RN but it entails keeping interested parties like the treasury trying to sell the ship…at a loss to the British tax payer!!! Its good for British shipyards as well considering MARS has all but gone and Type 26 will be in far smaller numbers then first planned.
FedaykinNobody knows what is going to happen with the Grupo 6 de Caza, as their Mirages are ending their career, with only a handfull of them flying, and no replacement is expected in the short term.
Well this is why I have a gut feeling about the purchase of extra AT-63 Pampa, as a way of keeping up pilot numbers when they are forced to retire time expired Mirage 3. A sticking plaster solution and leaves a gap in Argentine capability but it could be argued that the gap has existed for a number of years now considering all her neighbours operate more capable types in the QRA role. Buying spares for the A-4AR and parts from France to convert the Super Etendard to SEM is sensible.
FedaykinWell the J-10 is now working into exactly what Pakistan want. Fully multi-role with precision and stand off munitions, BVR capability, AESA radar, open architecture allowing easy integration of systems and a chinese engine with a possible thrust vectoring capability. Of course Pakistan will also want to have a Martin Baker seat and a few other local choices of system.
I am inclined to think that with the PAF having its hands full inducting updated MLU F16, new F16 and JF17 that they can wait for China to finish maturing the J-10B variant with a Chinese engine.
I think the recent further purchase of engines from Russia is purely to support Chinese needs with its current fleet.
FedaykinAlbania only operates helicopters now albeit I think there might be a few Chinese built An-2 and CJ-6 kicking about.
the rest of their fixed wing fleet is sitting in nice rows awaiting a buyer, apparently the Albanians have been trying to shift them onto warbird collectors.
FedaykinThe critical issue is the Mirage 3, they are very close to being time expired and they are completely obsolete in comparison to the aircraft operated by Argentina’s neighbours. The IAI Finger and Mirage 5 are probably getting short on hours as well but that recent order for extra AT-63 Pampa which has a secondary ground attack role is a sticking plaster solution to maintain ground attack capability within the airforce. I have no idea what the situation is with the Fightinghawk except that many are grounded. Their fleet air arm has less problems considering those Super Etendard should have plenty of life on them plus the infusion of parts when the French retire theirs.
Its about maintenance of a credible QRA capability within the Argentine airforce where the main problems exist. 2013 if I remember correctly is when the Mirage 3 have to be retired without a deep SLEP. SLEPping the Mirage 3 is hardly a cost effective solution (we are talking new wings and parts of the fuselage here) when there are plenty of perfectly good aircraft on the second hand market. But with the Argentine airforce deciding to be very picky and the government not releasing funds I see trouble ahead!
FedaykinAdmit it JSR you have to be Star49! Only he came up with as much utter tosh!
There is no chance whatsoever that Argentina would go for a Mig-29 variant.
As for your reasoning and asumptions about other types:
a) China doesn’t need the J-10 to have a standoff missile capability they have other types that perform the role. But there is no reason why the capability couldn’t be introduced in the future, the J-10 a multirole type has an open architecture weapons bus.
b) Argentina is not interested in second had M2K anymore so that is a non issue.
c) Mig-35 is more viable then the various Sukhoi variants out there…how many Su27/30 have been exported in the last decade vs Mig-29 and how many Mig-35 been sold so far…QED.
d) What the Russian company Mikran produces has no connection whatsoever with this debate.
FedaykinYeah Gripen and Gripen NG has some content issues for Argentina. MBDA Meteor is right out for the same reasons (remember it is a missile built around a British requirement) and I wonder about MICA as well now considering its from a merged business.
Indeed the Argentine gov hasn’t exactly been generous with money for fleet modernisation the Mirage replacement program has been delayed yet again.
I can see a strong argument for Super Hornet, it would allow a radical fleet consolodation for the FAA and their fleet air arm by replacing the Mirage (all types), A4 and Super Etendard. Then again it is a big heavy twin engine fighter something they haven’t operated before so I can all see a smaller single engine fighter fitting in nicely. With Gripen not being realistic that does narrow the field of choice to F16, surplus M2K or a chinese type JF17 or J10.
Well nothing happenuntil after the presidential election now.
FedaykinThe following are disadvanages of JH-7
Extremely low production volume with important thing like Engine not shared by any other aircraft. IF engine is so good why not use on FC-1.
Countries like Burma can afford MIG-29SMT but not FBC-1.
Because its too big an engine for the airframe.
Two seater. whats the point of having two as this aircraft cannot do simulatneous air to air and air to ground fight. and it does not have range and payload for long range missions.
In a dedicated strike aircraft two seats have repeatedly been shown to be a better solution when it comes to the mission management…or are you really advocating the F15E or the Tornado GR4 are bad at strike due to having two seats…?!
biggest flaw is it is too slow, not maneavourable. and will not keep with fighters on escort missions.
Evidence please! If not you are plucking these ideas out of a particular orifice on your backside…
Sign In
