Frankly I have to agree with Kapedani (this is probably a first!). Talk of Su-30s and PAK-FAs etc is wildly exaggerated and optimistic.

First of all, both of these aircraft are unsuitable (read: overkill) for our security needs. Serbia is a small country and we simply don’t need aircraft designed to operate across the vastness of countries like Russia, India and China. Some sort of new-built MiG-29 (the M2 would be a favourite) in small numbers would be much more suitable. Also, none of our neighbours are buying large numbers of fast jets, heck, Serbia’s most likely threats* (Croatia and Albania) may not even have any fast jets in their future plans. Also, Serbia does not have many distant foreign obligations that would require advanced combat aircraft – even if we had them, would we really send FLANKERs to Haiti?

In my opinion, a new look Serbian airforce** would have to fulfil the following roles:
1. Traditional air policing role, i.e. interception of peace-time incursions into the countries air space.
2. Conventional arms deterrent, i.e. be on a similar level in terms of capability as the airforces of neighbouring countries who could, in some future scenario, become threatening, in order to deter them from military solutions.
3. Be capable of supporting the army in a variety of different ways. The airforce should be able to support army or MUP actions in anti-terrorist operations as well as in conventional armed conflict should such a need arise. Under this requirement we can include all kinds of reconnaissance.
4. Provide experienced personel who could form the core of a larger force should resources and requirements arise that would facilitate the expansion of the airforce in the future.

For these roles it would be sufficient, in my opinion, to operate a squadron (or, at most, two) of modern multi-role combat aircraft which could be a potent adversary in the air and also perform precision strike missions when push comes to shove. A trainer/light combat aircraft should, if sufficiently modernised, be able to perform all weather CAS and recon missions in support of ground troops – and of course it would be used to train pilots.

It seems to me that Su-30s and PAK-FAs are simply too expensive and provide a number of capabilities that Serbia simply doesn’t need. Think smaller, simpler, more cost effective guys.

Also, any kind of military procurement is massively politically charged. If Serbia wants in to the EU it should maybe use this to its advantage. The French make aircraft don’t they? So do the Swedes I believe. May be handy buying something from them. If not, then improving links with an increasingly powerful China could be useful – could Serbia be the first export customer for the J-10? I wouldn’t mind. Anyway, even these sort of thoughts are pretty fanciful. Djink is right, its going to be years before we get anything new – maybe we should make the best of what we’ve got.

* In terms of conventional state warfare.
** If it ever materialises.

you are right and SU-30s are long range and very expensive plus when we have the updates with the mig 29s we will proboly have the most advance jet fighter out of all the former yougoslav republics plus Albania aint much of threat just keeping up patroling the borders and you should have good defence and we should down grade the airforce maybe keep the choppers beacuse they are easy to maintain and they are not much to run. proboly just also operate like 12 mig 21s for aleart retire the j-22s maybe keep the 2 seaters and there are anyway small amout of them keep the G-4s upgrade them to G-4M and also serbia has good realtions with france and they would sell us something later on or better to buy Saab 39 beaucse cheaper then grippen or lease them like the Czech republic did.

And also Kependi we might of taken 3 years to save up 10million Euro’s but we didnt take up 30 years to save up 10million for 12 choppers when i heard Germeny was offering Macodnia same type modle choppers 16 of them for free. Or maybe you did get that money in 1 month from donations thats how much petty they see on you so poor.

yeah it can be outflown by an airbus but whos got the missile armed.

So, then we have to talk about design principles of fighters. Your thinking how far I understand (please correct me if I’m wrong):
Supersonic fighter needs a little bit more fuel, they are twice as fast, ergo I need half as much. Avionics are the same anyways, so no reduced costs.

Wrong, completly, sorry.

“Supersonic” is even nearly 60 years after Chuck Yeager no easy game. It requires specialised engines, airframe, avionics, control systems. These are all very expensive. An afterburning engine is a totally different thing than a normal subsonic jet-engine. It will require much more maintenance. check out average engine life times to get a picture. To achieve supersonic speeds with average engine and airframe (so no F-22 or Eurofighter), your designers made lots of compromises. The F-104 and MiG-21 are the best example of a compromise fighter or “what to sacrifice for Mach 2”.

Mission Envelope:
A MiG-21 will fly subsonic. It can dash with two missiles at M1.8, for about 4 minutes. Then internal fuel is empty, if it has external fuel it will hardly reach M1.4. Fuel Flow is in the vicinity of 500 to 800kg/minute. After a dash there is no fuel left for any usable patrol. It needs to engage (if there is a target) and get back to base. To patrol an area (for example above a battlefield) 100nm from base you will need at least equal number of supersonic aircraft. Your basic misunderstanding: in a normal mission a supersonic aircraft is not supersonic, it flies nicely at M0.8. If it goes supersonic, its range decreases rapidly and one minute afterburner is about 10 minutes normal flight.

Note that usually supersonic ac have lower mission rates.

Training:
A supersonic aircraft is tricky to fly! OK, mighty F-16 and Eurofighter not, but anything not equipped with western control technology is tricky, needs training and will crash twice as much. To have a pilot who is at least a little bit skilled you need 100 hours a year, if you have more avionics and no complicated simulators add another 20 to 30 hours. Average engine lifetime of J-7 is surely below 1.000h, airframe maybe about 1.500h. So you fighter lasts 15 years in pure peacetime business. For a 24 fighter fleet plus a few trainers you will have a steady flow of spare parts.

Thats all corect and you are right and good example would be the L-139 not too expensive has the curssing speed of about 730Km/h its modern and the parts aint that expenisve and they are ussuly 2 seater and has all the weapons you need.

but most of the third world countries in africa dont have a big military budget they might use it for 2 years and then they wont be able to repair it. Mig 21 aint that good of a choice they would maybe need something that is around the 1400km/h speed that is supersonic not to much cost and run

well i reckon proboly Montengro will not be with us anymore plus its proboly better beacuse most of the prime minister and presindent is proboly corrupt or something.
But if they leave us 50% budget would supported on Army and Airforce beacusse we wouldnt have a Navy anymore we would only need to maybe just pertrol the dunabe and sava and tisa river but i doubt that anything will be going there like a submarince coming or and american ship.

Thats alot for 10 grand an hour would someone know how much would a f-16 cost per hour and also the upgrade serbia is doing do you think will it make the cost of fuel lower.