PioneerI don’t believe this transaction ever went through. As far as I know, Argentina only uses the Exocet missile.
—–JT—–
Thank you Vajt!!
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerSorry gents – but I was just looking at a book which states –
‘Argentina continues to be a good Israeli customer, and it was reported in 1984 that IAI had begun to supply three Gabriel III/AS missiles for each A-4 Skyhawk.’
Can anyone confirm that Argentina uses or has Gabriel ASM’s??
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerI am a big fan of both the Phantom II and the Crusader
But I have found it very interesting over the years how many people have hedged their choice of the F-4 Phantom II predominantly due to its all-weather and BVR kill capability, thanks greatly to its Aim-7 Sparrow capability, which the crusader lacked (regardless of the possible Crusader III)
The way that I see it through fact, is that the U.S Navy Cold War doctrine of BVR /stand-off kill was a costly mistake, which it would pay for over the skies of Vietnam.
Stats and figures clearly show that the Aim-7 Sparrow was/is a dud in terms of its tactical limitations (need to have launch aircraft maintain illumination of target aircraft till impact and the lighting up of target, which is warned by its RWR’s that there is a threat), reliability issues – how many Sparrow’s have been launched in combat only to fail, as compared to the ones which have worked successfully in engaging their target? (This was not just the case in Vietnam!)
The fact is that the Phantom II has scored more air-to-air kills with the use of the Sidewinder/Python SRAAM’s than any other weapon in its inventory.
How many times has the Phantom II (or for that matter the F-15, F-14………) had the ability to fully utilise its purpose-designed BVR air-to-air capability – what with the reliability problem of the Sparrow AAM, IFF and fuzzy rules of engagement ?
In the end the Phantom II would only reach its pinochle air-to-air capability with the production upgrade in the form of the USAF’s F-4E, which incorporated the much neglected built in cannon.
Now compare this to the simpler and cheaper (and older) F-8 Crusader!
Yes it was only a single seater – but this was deemed to it want by the USN at the time of its conception! (Vought was only providing a means to the US Navy’s RFP!)
Yes it was only armed with cannon (and originally a retractable tray with 32 unguided Mighty Mouse FFARs) and SRAAM’s
But in combat for their given numbers (the Crusader’s) and the amount of air-to-air engagement they took part in the 20mm cannon / Sidewinder combination proved a combat winner!
Also if the US Navy’s costly obsession with the Sparrow AAM had not been so wrongly engrained into their top brass, more focus and energy could have been put into the improvement of the likes of the Aim-9C radar-guided Sidewinder, which would have been far less susceptible to G-lock issues of the bigger and far more expensive and poor reliable Sparrow. (one should also take note of how many Sparrow AAM’s were fired at close range, as opposed to their designed medium/long range!), which could have very easily and far cheaper done by Sidewinder’s!
I am very confident that if the US Navy had not have been totally and utterly infatuated with the Phantom II as being the ‘be-all and end-all’ of its on-board fighter fleet (as would latter be carried on with the F-14 Tomcat and the F/A-18 Hornet!!), then the F-8 Crusader could have (and would have) been improved even further and made more capable – especially with its proven combat record and its confidence of its pilots.
The issues of the likes of carrier approach stability, engine excess ability, could have been fixed by the incorporation of the development of the V-1000 and Super V-1000 design studies of Vought, which included the likes of a ventral area increase by 37%, A-7D type engine removal doors, removable tail cone, larger air inlet area………………
I also see no issue of modifying the wing pylons/hard points to be plumbed for drop tanks if that’s what the US Navy specified
The two-seat desire of the then US Navy top brass could have been accommodated in the likes of the studied combat variant of the TF-8A, as proposed to the Royal Navy.
Note: pics from ‘Secret Projects’ forum (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php)
P.S. Has anyone got a good picture of a Crusader showing its retractable tray of Mighty Mouse FFAR’s??????
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerI´ve read in one of my plane books,that one Tiger was shot down by it´s own 20mm rounds which she fired before???:eek:
anyone else heard sth about it
I have also read somewhere that whilst mating the new M61 20mm rotary cannon to the equally new F-104 Starfighter, it too had a couple of disasters (But I can not recall if this lead to the loss of the Starfighter(s)?)
Maybe someone can clarify this please???
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerI can not but help wonder if Saudi Arabia has not forgotten the Iraqi attack on Saudi territory during the 1991 War!
The Saudi’s have a lot of great state-of-the-art gear, but I do not know how much they are truly able to operate it in its entire capability and capacity! (Very much like the Shah’s Iranian military was!!)
I would think that Saudi Arabia having its own fleet of 10 x C-17’s would go a long way to self transporting the likes of U.S military forces and equipment to bolster its own defences – as USAF C-5’s and C-17’s are so heavily committed!!
For it would be very handy for the likes of Saudi Arabia history of direct assistance of fellow Arab/Muslim countries.
I would think that Saudi Arabia having its own fleet of 10 x C-17’s would go a long way to self transporting the likes of U.S military forces and equipment to bolster its own defences – as USAF C-5’s and C-17’s are so heavily committed!!
For it would be very handy for the likes of Saudi Arabia history of direct assistance of fellow Arab/Muslim countries in providing arms that Saudi Arabia has purchased with its own money to equipe their brothers – without getting their own hands blooded or dirty.
Saying this with the amount of wars in the Middle East and North Africa, if Saudi Arabia had of utilised its prestiege and money to directly assist with the likes of Saudi combat or advisors, its military ability would match its state-of-the-art weapons systems they have and continue to buy!
By the way – when do you think we are going to see Boeing promote a C-17‘B’?
I have been wondering when a stretched variant of the C-17 may be offered to the USAF (as happened with the Lockheed C-141A stretch to C-141B)?
I am sure the French would have loved Saudi Arabia to have waved some spare cash to purchasing the A-400M!
But then again why would you!!
P.S. I think some market manager of Boeing is in for a big bonus this year, when one considers that not to long ago they (Boeing) were fretting about closing C-17 production!
Selling a lot of these very big and expensive strategic transporters to county’s and their military’s which do not need them!
Nice Coup!
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerI have always been a great fan of the Skyraider!
I find it amazing that such a simple aircraft ‘designed and built from combat experience was literally worn out before their operation need and want expired (not many aircraft designs can clam that status!!).
I recently watched a documentary on Jolly Green Giant’s and CSAR in the Vietnam War which showed the amazing loiter time on station, firepower and manoeuvring of the Skyraider’s in their Sandy role!
Yes the Skyshark was an ‘unfortunate’ failure (as were so many other promising U.S turboprop powered aircraft designs of the late 1940-50’s) – , due to U.S aero engine company’s inability to design and develop a large and powerful turboprop design engine. (instead they were to obsessed with using a troublesome coupled-engine and gearbox arrangement!)
Would be interesting to see what they could come up with the basic Skyraider design and modern turboprop!!
Although I have to say I am a very big advocate or two-engine layout for CAS/COIN role!
I have used the Mk 19 40mm AGL, which is very impressive weapon!
Great fire power!
I wonder if it could be incorporated into a slower fixed-wing aircraft like the Skyraider / OV-10D – or is its velocity to low?
P.S My only concern for the USAF’s re emergence of the need for a ‘type’ (Super Tucano / OV-10) and ‘role’ (COIN/CAS) is how long will it take to fall out of fashion once again after all the time, effort and the lessons, skills and doctrine are re-learn (as has been the case with the USAF again and again and again since the end of WWII)!
Regards
Pioneer
Pioneer‘If the UK saw a need for a smaller land-based AEW aircraft to supplement the E-3 it would be illogical to base it on anything other than the Global Express. It’s an adequate platform, & already in service’.
So be it anything is better than nothing!
‘Possibility, if the special forces can get onto the Island and through the defenses without setting off alarms’.
Rule 1 – never under estimate your enemy!:D
‘Not a neglect, it just wasnt figured into their plans that they’d be fighting a war 8000 miles from home and 4000 miles from the nearest RAF base’.
Sorry I still see it as neglect!
Since WWII the RN has known the importance of AEW and its ‘Force Multiplier’ aspect!
Its tiny over stretch and over burdened Sea Harrier and their crews would have been given far greater reprieve with AEW to queue them into action.
How many RN ships could have been better protected if AEW was employed to warn the fleet of inbound threats?
It’s most unfortunate that the RN chose to forget the importance of AEW, as it thought it was smarter than the average bear!
(Don’t worry – I think the USN has done a similar mistake with the phasing out of their carrier-based fixed-wing ASW role and assets, like the S-3 Viking!
Again due predominantly to their idea that they can save money and that they know better!) How easy we forget the reality’s and experiences of war!
‘Add another aircraft/equipment type to inventory that would need supporting? Are you mad?’
Hell I would give my back teeth for two relative cheap AEW aircraft down there than an additional Sq of Typhoon’s
As Swerve was so good to point out utilize the ‘Global Express’ design if you are happy to pay the cost of incorporating the Erieye system to it!
Hell put it on a balloon for I care so long as you can see 200+ Km’s of sea and aerospace!
As for your aircraft/equipment type to inventory concerns – that’s an issue long over due for addressing by the RAF!
Unfortunately that’s why in most Western military’s we have a ridicules ratio of five support personal to the one poor clown doing the fighting!
I’m an Assault Pioneer, and not one of those who shuffles the paper work and states 8.6 bullets per soldier per month so we can have the Red Arrows fly at this given air show!
‘If only they could afford them’.
Hell that doesn’t stop the other half of the world military’s!!
‘Note also that, except 5th Generation Fighters, there is nothing ahead of the Su-35BM. Nor Americans nor Europeans can sell a plane of this class, and note this ultimate Flanker fits perfectly on the Argentinean Air Force needs, given the country size and long littoral’.
The PRC are making inroads to the likes of Central America with exceptional success and influence – so who knows with Argentina’s need to modernize it military equipment, with minimal money to spend, could we see the likes of J-10’s, FC-1 and FBC-1 (FH-7) Leopard
Ok they may not be Western aircraft their military would prefer! But they are far more modern and capable to what they now have in their inventory!
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerI think the Argentinean’s would know the limitations of their own assets better than anyone else!
Their aircraft may be old by design, but they have proven they have the pilots skills
I would not put all my faith in HAS to protect your aircraft!
What chance does your flight of four Typhoon QRA have if attacked by Special Forces?
One of the biggest things I have never been able to get my head around is the deliberate lack or want of light and medium type lack of Anti aircraft guns by the British military full stop!
Their total faith in missile defence was proven to be flawed in the last Falklands War.
Its ironic that the British were so impressed by the capability and performance of the Oerlikon 35 mm twin cannon AA gun system and its supporting Skyguard radar system operated against them by the Argentinean’s that 12 guns and 4 Skyguard radars were put into British service back in Britain after they were captured.
Again as the British were made to discover (once again after all that had been experienced during the Second World War) first hand was that AA guns make excellent and devastating direct-fire mission against ground troops!
(Do this British still employ these captured Argentinean AA guns or have they chosen to forget that lesson as well!)
And what about the biggest fundamental mistake of the British military forces that had to take back the Falkland Islands in 1982?
The total neglect and disregard for the importance of AEW!
Does the existing Falkland’s garrison have AEW assets to both warn and take the initiative?
If no, then they should!
It is very doubt full that the Argentinean’s would attempt an air or sea strike – if they could not be guaranteed the initial element of surprise.
The RAF and the Falkland garrison does not need some big and expensive (to both run and maintain!) Sentry AEW1(E-3D) stationed down in the South Atlantic.
Something as small and cost effective as the Embraer EMB-145 / Erieye would go a long way in dominate the aerospace of the Falkland Islands and any surprise attacks!
Saying this I think the Argintinian’s would be wised to invest in the likes of Sukhoi Su-30’s for both their capability, range, price and no strings attached politics!
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerAfter the cancellation of the Avro Arrow, Blackburn did drawings of a proposed fighter variant of the Buccaneer. And presented it to Canada.
Voodoo
And I am very cofident that the RAAF was also offered a similar option of a Interceptor and strike mix at the time of their interest in TFX/TSR.2
PioneerWhen was the last time the British had a significant exercise down in the Falkland’s?
I do not mean one company of Royal Marines, four Tornado’s and one frigate!
I mean a true show of force to emphasis it want and importance of the Falkland Islands!
After all is this not what gave the green light to the Argentinean’s in 1982!
I think the British military has to show its conventional war fighting capability and want more, as it has got so tied up in its out of control expedition wars on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This I also will go a long way in stemming the want of the typical British political system to slash and burn their military again and again at any opportunity.
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerNot so funny. We used to knock down the Crusaders anyway in war exercises.
Sorry Sea Vixen, i am interested with what and when please?
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerWell, the German Luftwaffe has started reequipping some Tornado Squadron with single seat Typhoons in the strike role.
I hope they made their homework there.However, it is worth noting that the French Arme de l´Aire changed its acquisition plan in order to include a higher number of Rafale B twoseaters to act as dedicated strike platforms instead of conversion trainers for the single seat Rafale A.
So one might think that a two men cockpit is still preferrable for all weather strike.
I believe that this was a refection of around the clock battle experience of the first Gulf War and the fact that most of the Western Air Forces had to relearn what they had so easily forgotten or thought technology could replace!
The RAF (like most Western Air Forces) are very good at playing the political game!
They will use the Typhoon in place of the more suited Tornado – so as to justify a need for further purchases of the type.
I think its a pity that such a purpose designed strike / interdiction aircraft as the Tornado should be shudder aside because there’s a new kid on the block.
On the flip side of the coin it is long, long overdue that the RAF have a true air combat capable fighter in its inventory after decades of neglect and improvisation (as opposed to traditional interceptors!)
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerSlightly off topic…I remember reading that the F-5 was intended to be used on old WW2 escort and light carriers, until the ships were phased out.
cheers
From what I have read my friend you are correct!
As for me it would have to be the Vought F-8 crusader
Although I would like to have seen a better cannon armament than the Colt Mk 12’s! (perhaps 2 x 30mm Aden’s!!)
For size, weight, cost and capability it was perhaps the best value supersonic fighter the USN & USMC has ever had.
Its pivoting wing design was simple and very effective!
Vought had some very skilled designers and engineers.
Saying this I have to agree with the Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger being a lost opportunity!!
Regards
Pioneer
Pioneer– Navalised RAFALE: technicaly yes, but the hate that the English have for French (and their policy “all for the US”) will prevent the deal with the French, except if…
The Brit’s seemed to have been very happy (and served well by) with the likes of the Gazelle & Puma helicopters, SEPECAT Jaguar, the Milan ATGM!
I think it very sensable that the Rafale be the best option for the RN.
The notion of developing a naval Typhoon prohibitively expensive and crazy, for such a small production run!
The Sea Gripen has the advantage of its lightweight and size for a given multi-role capability – but again would the cost of developing it be worth while? Although granted there could be a better market for a Sea Gripen in the likes of Brazil and India.
The F/A-18E/F is just to large, heavy and expensive for what the CVF is or is planned – it would chew up the carriers spotting factor very quickly in my opinion! (although I could just imagin the RN having a wet dream about the want for the added ‘Bling’ which comes with the Super Hornet family – such as the EF-18G Growler……….)
As for the Rafale its a great ‘carrier-based multi-role fighter for its size, weight and capability! Add to this it is already in French Naval service and carrier compatible = big savings in both R&D and time in entering service!
In my opinion (not being crass or derogative to my French colleague’s!!), but if you look at the French arms and aviation industry without bias, it is very apparent that so long as the French ‘start’ and ‘run’ a given vehicle, aircraft, missile or radar system all is well and usually ends well!
But if the French are felt compelled to be part of say a multi-nation ‘Program X’, it more often than not ends in disaster and tears for everyone, with the French going off and doing their own thing at the programs expense!!!!!
Sad really
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerScratch the idea of six CV-22’s. That’s half a billion dollars right there alone. Better off using helicopters to get more bang for the buck. Not sure if C-2A could operate from a 500 foot flight deck; they weight up to 25 tons. Maybe there are better options for ferrying supplies between ship and shore for a 500 foot deck.
I tend to agree – the CV-22 are very expensive.
Could the C-2 Greyhound use a ski ramp?
Regards
Pioneer
Sign In
