I believe that the Saudi ones do as well…..I have seen at least two in pics that have the refuelling probes….

[ATTACH=CONFIG]234217[/ATTACH]

My question is this….how much maintenance and such are the F – 5’s getting in Saudi now?…I mean they are completely replaced and off the books so to speak….are they just deteriorating?…..

Good question, if they are sitting out somewhere Saudi Arabia is rather a good choice. Hot and dry, going on the sale of ex Kuwaiti A4 to Brazil they were in fantastic condition for just that reason.

Next how much did the Saudis use them before retirement? In respect of maintenance prior to retirement I would think it would be “money no object” and the work being done by foreign contractors.

The F-5 is a robust. low maintenance type and it has an amazing airframe life even in comparison to modern types.

Wonder how F-5’s would measure up against Typhoon as it is and later with Meteor and an even better radar than it has now. Given the stand off between Argentina and the UK over the South Atlantic Islands, the most likely scenario for hostile use of the Argentine air force is in a conflict over those islands, isn’t it?

On the other hand 79 F-5’s would be an economic way of replacing decrepit aircraft and keeping the Argentine air force functioning in the air for another decade or more. Cheap way of keeping an airspace policing capability to me.

I also wonder whether Switzerland might have an interest for the same reason: a low cost replacement for F-5’s that RUAG could upgrade and something that might not get vetoed in a referendum. Must be a lot cheaper than flying more hours on the F-18’s (depending on how much they need to bid to acquire the surplus Saudi aircraft in the first place).

To answer your first paragraph, no they wouldn’t. Lets say were upgraded to an equivalent standard to the Brazilian examples with the Derby BVR missile they would still be outclassed by Typhoon in all respects. The radar fitted to Typhoon is larger and more powerful allowing earlier detection, its overall performance is superior in every metric of the flight envelope. Only close in with a knife edge fight using a HMD and late generation HOBS missile would they have a chance but they would have to get their first.

I doubt they would buy 79 airframes but 25 to 30 might be a realistic number, that would allow them to replace the Mirage III, Mirage V and Nesher in one go. They could then go for something like two squadrons of twelve aircraft or three squadrons with six aircraft depending on how they want to stabilize a restructured frontline. Anything more than 30 and then you really need to be talking about retiring the A4 as well and concentrating on a two type fast force within the FAA of F-5 and Pampa. Considering the A4 is a useful type I would lean towards keeping it.

If the Saudi F-5 are in good nick I think there will be a fair amount of interest, certainly there will be some private companies like Draken International who would possibly take a punt.

I did not think that issue of the Su 24 for Argentina it was serious too, however now after to see this link I guess the issue is not just speculation:

http://www.janes.com/article/47293/uk-reviews-falklands-defence-as-russia-offers-su-24s-to-argentina

I do not guess that even 24 Su 24M could be a great threat to the United Kingdom in the Falklands, however I also guess the Su 24 would not be the only , since it would make no sense to acquire attack aircraft without such capable fighter for this escort mission of the Su 24 and the own air defense mission from Argentina to replace the older Mirage IIIEA.

Indeed there are much speculation about this issue, however something is certain that Russia has not been happy with the crisis in Ukraine, and especially with the idea that Ukraine join with NATO.

The invasion of the Falklands in 1982 by Argentina had been motivated by high possibility of the oil reserves in the Falklands and also for the financial crisis in Argentina, so for the Russia today to complicate NATO’s life by increasing the military capabilities from Argentina would not be a waste of resources, after all the possibility for a new conflict in the Falklands certainly could affect the will from investors to put their money in oil exploration in the Falklands, and with the decline in the production of the oil and gas in the North Atlantic, its possible that Europe would become more dependent of the energy sources from foreign countries as Russia.

In this case to Russia the energy dependence from Europe would be even greater in the future than today, then Europe would import this energy from some sources, and and among them would be from Russia.

No this just shows how far Jane’s have sunk in recent years when it come to the quality of their reporting, in the past they were a reliable source these days all they do is regurgitate whatever comes up on the internet with little fact checking.

If you look at the article you find they are quoting a Daily Mail article …. A DAILY MAIL ARTICLE????!!!!!

Since when has the Daily Mail been a reliable source for defence related matters? They then put in a short lackluster analysis and throw it up on their website.

There is no truth to the reports, the FAA have denied it and the original article was published on a day which is regarded as the Latin American equivalent of April Fools Day. It is a hoax pure and simple, unfortunately the British tabloid press lept on it. It is a shame that Jane’s fell prey to it! Lets hope Key Publishing don’t waste column inches reprinting it in AFM!

Sorry Rii, I can’t read the Welsh language. What does it say?

The runway at Stanley is currently 3,013ft long so slightly too short for C-17 which has a minimum landing run of 3,500ft with another 300ft run off at either end of the runway. If the unused extension for the mid 80’s Phandet is solid enough then it might be possible to run C-17 out of the field, I have added a link to an engineering technical document for operating C-17 out of semi prepared fields:

https://www.wbdg.org/ccb/AF/AFETL/etl_97_9.pdf

The A400M Atlas might be able to operate from Stanley as it is currently configured but it would be tight, numbers are a bit nebulous but 2,750ft with a 100 ton tactical load has been put forward by Airbus in the past. On the other hand it needs 3,215ft to take off with 100 tons so any operations of Stanley as currently configured would require a light load to get out again. Again if the runway extension could be brought back into use with matting etc then the problem goes away for both types.

Both runways at MPA are capable of handling Globemaster and Atlas with the main 10/28 being a hoofing 8,497ft long. Heavy laden 747 have operated out of MPA with no problems.

3 Batteries as I understood it.

Well they are holding the SU22M4 in flyable condition awaiting any kind of contract the requires that kind of performance. I presume if the F-4F story is true it would be a similar scenario. Any contract that requires an aircraft that has supersonic performance with a payload.