Jay Langleyand that map shows a SMALLER area than what Canada patrols?…….likewise we need to patrol our border with the USA as well…..plus up to the Arctic Circle…seems pretty even if you ask me……
And here is the REAL kicker….
Canada does ALL of OUR patrolling with less than 80, EIGHTY!, yes EIGHTY Operational Fighters and a small fleet of Maritime Patrol Aircraft!
the USA uses THREE services, PLUS the Air National Guard and JUST IN FIGHTERS ( of all different types) over 2,400 planes!……..This is excluding the US Coast Guard, all the various Maritime patrol Aircraft……
There is NO WAY shape or form that the needs of Canada are LESS than the USA…where all inclusive, the area of “patrol” and coverage is substantially the same as ALL US areas inclusively…..that we manage to maintain our airspace AS WELL as respond to intercept and first contact with Intruders through NORAD, AND send aircraft and crews OVERSEAS to play with the other Nations is nothing short of incredible, yet we do…time after time, currently in Baltic AND now in Saudi Arabia for missions against ISIS, and will have planes at any NATO exercises that occur as well….and we do not shirk or commitments…..in fact it was CANADIAN CF18’s that where THE first ARMED fighters in North American skies on 9/11 and aided the USAF on request of NORAD.
ALSO, I included the Population density simply for this reason…..WHERE THERE ARE PEOPLE, THERE ARE ROADS, AIRPORTS, all aspects that make a HUGE difference in things like Search and rescue of a downed Pilot 6,000 km from NOWHERE…..in the USA, a pilot has issues he has 25 Military Airfields within a very short distance and triple that number of civil airfields for an emergency…….almost immediate access by fire services ( crash) and Medical……
seriously if you couldn;t figure that out……….I don;’t know……..
Jay LangleyTo extend upon my point:
Nations by Landmass, and Population density:
#1. Russia : 170705200 Sq. Km Pop. Density : 8.2 per Sq. Km
#2. Canada: 9984670 Sq. Km Pop Density: 3.3 per Sq. Km
#3. USA : 9629091 Sq. Km Pop Density: 31.6 per Sq. Km
#67. Norway: 324220 Sq. Km Pop Density: 14.3 per Sq. Km
#78. UK / NI : 244820 Sq. Km Pop Density: 248.9 per Sq. Km
also: The Canadian Provinces of Nunavut and the North West Territories, our two most Northernly Provinces
Nunavut: 2093190 Sq. Km Pop Density : 0.015 per Sq. Km ( note: only TWO airports capable of fighters, neither over 9,000 ft, and one is GRAVEL)
North West Territories: 1346106 Sq. Km Pop Density : 0.04 per Sq. Km ( note: has three airports over 6,000 ft, none are Military FOB’s)
Just to give you an idea of size……. Alaska is : 1477953 Sq. Km and represents 24% of US landmass
please compare apples to apples…… EVERY Nation has criteria that is totally unique to themselves, because NO two Nations are the same.
Jay LangleyBlah blah blah…yep right…..
Well, an absolutely CLEAN F35 has flown Mach1.6 great……and absolutely CLEAN F18 E/F can do 1.8…..POINT?…..
the THEORY that “Its no big deal” to carry more weapons than it can is a THEORY…until it actually happens, it is THEORY, they may PLAN it to be able to do things…but until it DOES, it;s theory…
Believing EVERY piece of info that the spin doctors at LM spew is stupid…..they are trying to SELL the thing……are “numbers / info” fudged…ABSOLUETLY, hence the Senate inquiries and issues……
Reality is always somewhere in between….do people always believe everything that a Car manufacturer says about their cars?……I hope not….you wait until tested by a third party right?…..same thing with this F35………NO ONE has ANY stats to compare or post because EVERYTHING is controlled by LM…….
bottom line, the F18 E/F is already in SERVICE, not testing…..it can carry ANYTHING in the arsenal, it;s stats are iron clad…it is CHEAPER, it is CHEAPER to operate, has TWO tried and tested engines an airframe design for rough conditions and carrier landing / takeoff shall we continue FACT versus fiction
OK…got news for you….NORWAY is the size of ONE province in Canada!….does it get cold…sure…is it massive expanses of wilderness…NOPE…can it be compared …..in NO way the same…….
Does Alaska compare…Partially…..just multiply it 15 or 20 times , does Alaska have more acceptable runways and logistical support available than 90% of Canada….YES…….why, because Alaska is a heavily defended and militarized area….and again…NO design has been finalized for Drouge chutes for the planes….they are PLANNED, totally untested and not even ( by your own literature) expected to be initially “fitted” to a test plane until 2017….and even though Norway is said to get their “delivery” in 2015, they will NOT be allowed to take THEIR aircraft to Norway…but MUST remain in the USA….and all testing is done BY the LM and USAF, NOT the end user, under THEIR conditions…..which are NOT the same as Alaska….
perhaps some posters here should get off their computers and actually TRAVEL around the world…it does so much good in understanding things are DIFFERENT everywhere……..your simply , again, trying to shoe horn the F35 into “everyones” situation by downplaying everyones situations….
just accept it…the F35 is NOT now, nor will it ever be the BEST or correct choice for every Nation, why is that so hard for people to accept?….if you really really like it, than great, hopefully it works for Nation and you get to see it with your Nations low vis markings on it…looking identical to the next Nations low Vis marked ones….I am sure it will be a day of massive joy for some……
Jay LangleyThanks Msphere,
At least what I was saying made sense to someone. There was alot of discussion awhile ago regarding the F35 on some various Canadian Forums etc…..certainly alot of opinions and reasons…interestingly there was a fairly substantial number of people that figured Canada would do better to acquire RUSSIAN planes than American, as logistically, climatically and land mass sizewise, we have more in common with Russia than we do with the USA.
I certainly don;t advocate this at all….but I can certainly see the point: Russia does NOT make HUGE sprawling airbases with incredibly long runways, neither does Canada, do to the shear size of the Country, there are far fewer airports and further apart for emergency situations, same as in Canada, In Russia, the planes could go up in relatively clear weather and be forced to land in snow, very poor visability and slush on the runway, same as in Canada, Russians operate any number of remote Air Stations on temporary basis, same as Canada ( with short, and often snow covered runways), the Russians, without having the shear number of Airbases all over the Nation as the USA does, tends to move Fighters to areas as needed, using temp or sub standard locations and moving logistics / maintenance equipment and personnel as required, same as Canada…and the constant issue of aircraft going down in inhospitable and remote locations and the associated issues from such…..
Devils Advocate time here: IF Canada and Russia have SOME simular issues , and Russia has built decades worth of Aircraft that are designed to deal WITH just those issues, rough terrain landing / take off, cold weather, massive distances to cover, reliable multi engined aircraft, built tough to take a rough environment…would, THEORETICALLY, Canada find better value and a better aircraft for OUR situation by looking at the Russian PAK FU?…or the latest and greatest in the SU-30’s?…
YET, due to political ties, Canada has been almost forced into the F35, a plane that is tempermental, designed with warm weather and massive support always available, selling points like “interoperability” and such are PROVEN false hoods, as any type of airframe can be “linked” as is proven in the EF, Rafale and Gripen NG……so how did this happen?…….POLITICS
I guess we “PLAN” on being dragged around the globe along with NATO and other “Allies” every time the USA “decides” it is going to act…maybe everyone having the same plane is some super idea……as long as nothing grounds them all!….
anyway, I digress…….YES, much like Russian reasoning, Canada HAD , Up till now, looked always at multi engined airframes to avoid the costly mistake of the US designed “Starfighter”……
Jay LangleyTime to post one of my favourite graphs again 🙂
As you can see, the Super Hornet comes close to Mach 1.6 armed with 4 AAMs ie not faster than F-35. And that is without any pylons on the wing or fuel tanks. For comparison, your legacy Hornet is a bit faster. Still the Hornets family strong point isn’t speed. Nor range for that matter. F-35 ferry range is unknown. 1200nm is simply combat radius x2 ie combat range.
If they manage to add another 2 AAMs to the 4 internally carried (planned iirc), and find a way for 2 of those to be AIM-9, you have a Mach 1.6 jet armed with the typical 4+2 AAMs. Better than the Hornet in any case.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]232692[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]232693[/ATTACH]
I don;t get it, your posting KNOWN stats from the OPERATIONAL F-18 E/F, and that is great…BUT remembering that the F18 E/F has no “stealth”, and does carry all it;s ordnance on EXTERNAL pylons…it being armed with ANY variety of missiles up to and including the new AIM 9X or METEOR , it sure doesn;t do to baddly….where as you post TOTALLY UNKNOWN stats for the F35…no actual facts to back up your claim at all….the “IF they manage” for the F35 or the “IF they find a way” doesn’t cut the mustard…speculation and “plans” mean nothing..it is not indesputable FACT, it remains speculation..there for, in reality, NOTHING about the F35 is “better” than any existing aircraft, not because it doesn;t have the POTENTIAL, but it cannot be measured on what it has NOT accomplished…therefore anything relating to it is speculated, not fact based. Someday, I am sure that the F35 will be spectacular, will that make it the right choice for every Country?…no, will it be great plane capable of living up to it;s EXPECTED / POTENTIAL capabilities, I am sure it will…but until measurable ability is met, it remains in the realm of estimated / expected potential, not fact.
I’m sorry ,but that is how my mind works, I cannot look at promises and expectations on paper and take that as fact…..it;s like saying a teenager has the POTENTIAL to get high 90’s for marks in all subjects at school, however, in reality his performance is much different, gaining 50’s and 60’s. So he still retains the POTENTIAL, but FACTUAL PERFORMANCE is markedly less. So what is the end result for the student?…..does he graduate on POTENTIAL or Factually graded ability and effort….was the discrepancy between the POTENTIAL and the Factual Ability caused by over assessment of the Potential initially, where all the factors accounted for? or was it that the student simply didn;t try because he found teenage girls more interesting…
I know, a bizzare way of explaining it…….I guess the old adage ” a bird in the hand, is better than two in the Bush”….fact vs. speculation
Jay LangleyBased on the threat posed by ejection during a North Canadian winter, I’d rule out 2 of those based on engine count and loss rate.
Lucos, you mention this almost in a sarcastic way, yet I wonder if you have any realistic idea of what Northern Canada is actually like. There can be snow that is 6 – 7 feet deep, cold that can bottom out at -60 during the long dark winter ( perpetual darkness ), absolutely NO civilization for thousands of miles, during the summer it will be warmer, but often still drops into the – temps at night, snow can be slow to melt, and when it does the ground is tundra, marsh and bog, very wet and difficult to traverse, and the sun never sets..the swarms of insects, black flies, mosquitos, etc are unrelentless. S&R in Canada is very capable, yet substantial time can expire as the S&R is based in various “Sections” of the Country ( West Coast, Central, and East Coast)…for example, a pilot bails out over the Far North, north of CFS Alert…the local “Canadian Rangers” will activate and head out on snowmobiles or boats or what is appropriate. They will attempt to get to the Pilots area, meanwhile the S&R ( RCAF Manned) is activated and the Hercules from CFB Trenton, (Southern Ontario), a distance of over 4,000 KM just to CFS Alert, at which point it will start its Search in the area highlighted by the GPS and signals….on location, the Hercules will locate an area within reasonable distance and Parachute drop in several Search and Rescue Techs and various equipment / med supplies etc…..then the issue becomes HOW to retrieve the pilot and SAR techs…do they cut an area out of the thick spruce trees?…do they move to a better site?…what is the ETA for a SAR Chopper to traverse that distance, likely refueling several times at least, just to get there in order to facilitate either ground landing removal or airborne winching up of the pilot and the SAR crew.
Very few Nations in the world face such extensive areas to cover or face SAR situations as far spread and difficult. So it really is a concern, perhaps not for other nations, but certainly for Canada.
Which is why so many Canadian are astounded that the F35 was even considered..right or wrong, but bottom line comes down to “being the right choice” for each individual Nation…
Jay LangleyCertainly the single engined Airframes ARE and historically have been an issue with RCAF ever since the Starfighters..granted they were used for ground attack, far outside their sphere of design….and suffered for it. Canada seems to have put aside the single engine contention with even looking at the F35, so in that case would not the Gripen also not be a contender? The internet site I mentioned has nothing to do with me, just highlights that there is some interest and it was presented quite well.
Certainly ANY single engined airframe will present a situation where engine failure in a remote and in hospitable climate will result in the exact same result…that can;t be argued…bottom line in staying with the RCAF’s past demand for multi engined, NEITHER the Gripen NOR the F35 would meet the requirement. In the case ( as has happened ) where NO open competition was undertaken and NO other airframes where even looked at, could the Gripen have displayed itself well enough to continue to be a contender? In my likely opinion, I would see either the VERY substantial offer for the Rafale or EF’s doing VERY well in a open competition..the F18 E/F performing ok, but no major wow to it…The common thought here in Canada seems to be that there should have been a full competition, however there was NONE.
As for the Meteor…should both aircraft have the same missile system ( how realistic is that scenario? would these missiles be supplied to possible belligerents? or would it more likely be a foreign “simular” system?), I would imagine that a substantial amount of luck, skill and aircraft ability will play a part….same as it always has…..and again,what platforms are engaged in the scenario…SU30’s, PAK FU’s vs. what, a section of Gripens? a single Gripen?…
Jay LangleyNicolas10, so your advocating that Argentina should use Gripens and area ( Cluster ) bomb the FI’s? for what purpose? the Political claim on the FI’s by Argentina are pathetic at best. I am not understanding your theory at all, avoid aerial combat but slide in an unexpected ground attack? I do believe that is what your posted Youtube link referances is it not?
Again, reality is that no Argentinian “Gripens” will be flying anywhere, let alone against the FI and the RN / RAF protectorate. whom else do you foresee acquiring and using the Gripen AGAINST NATO nations? and sorry, ANY Gen 4.5 aircraft armed with a superior weapons system, lets use the Meteor as example stands a decent chance of successfully engaging a Gen 5 aircraft. A pilots luck , elements and skill will have some bearing on how things develop
by the way, I have no invested interest in any of the “political” rubbish..I simply find it interesting that attacking the FI’s and open combat between RAF / RN aircraft and Gripens is even being discussed.
How about more realistic scenarios, seeing as the Gripen is actively deployed in it;s current form in South Africa, how will it fair against say Angolan SU-27’s and SU-30’s, would the NG version improve the situation…..aggression that may see Gripens flying in a combat scenario are slim to nil in the Southern Cone. Nor is hypothetical “combat” between E/F Typhoon II’s or Rafale’s vs. Gripens in any way realistic.
Perhaps looking at recent air combat scenarios are more likely…various Mid Eastern or African nations with any number of various aircraft, from Mig 15’s up to more advanced types. This fantasy land thinking where swarms of PAK FU’s or HAL’s or J-20’s or J-31’s will be facing off against, what?…..look at the “Aggressor Nations”, sure Russia is building Gen 5 Aircraft, complete with Stealth, BUT they are also maintaining an active fleet of others like the SU-30 SM and M2’s for years to come, why?…multiple capabilities…how is that to be dealth with?….how would Gripen NG’s fair in that scenario?..same for the Chinese..some slam them for multiple types, yet that is the BEST logical system, overlapping capabilities and options.
There is alot of thought, even a substantial internet site that seriously outlines WHY the Gripen NG would be the substantially better choice for Canada, a very active NATO partner, given the scenario where that occured, where would that develop?..NG’s actually operating with other Nations and their F35’s, EF’s and Rafale’s….lots of capability for interaction is there not?..
just don;t see where rediculous hypotheticals are of benefit to even discuss…just my opinion
Jay LangleyI have to ask…do you guys work in the aerospace industry?….
Certainly you are arguing points that in reality NO ONE outside of the industry really knows about nor cares about…..reality is your arguing about technical data far beyond the point of the “F 35 NEWS, Multimedia & Discussion”….
The actual program, nor the airframes themselves are being talked about…but stripping the entire program to it ‘s core parts , then arguing about technical data that for the most part will be at least “protected” data if not more…so in reality it is all speculation and opinion…how can it be of benefit or be “proven right or wrong”.
Just seems counter productive and goes around and around in circles.
To anyone outside of the Aerospace Industry such technical data is redundant and such Paper Stats pointless…is it not really the sum of all the parts..I mean your arguing about system data that I doubt even an actual F35 Pilot would know about , as long as it worked and he knew how to work it. Techs deal with the development and maintenance etc….and is highly specialized..I am assuming that perhaps you guys are techs? or perhaps just average joes with a far to deep interest in to the F35..
just curious..
Jay LangleyThanks for the article link mig-31bm….
Interesting read…BUT it does NOT say that this IS going to happen….only that it is an “envisioned possability”…..with the standard Meteor not quite “in service” extensively yet….having another Nation jump the technology of others, Italy included…..not quite sure that things are that advanced……in either the Meotor program nor the F35…to say now, with any certainty what “Blocks” are going to include is utter speculation……with this F35, everything has been in utter flux since the begining….and that is one of the issues with it..
…I am quite sure that getting the damb plane flying and operating as it should is likely the paramount concern….and don;t BS that it is…because it is NOT……it is still in early testing phases despite the fact that they are building some numbers of them….like idiots……as I said…the big celibrated “Delivery” for the UK….nope….it is IN THE USA ( not even the right model)…being tested …same as the Australian ONE…..there was a recent article in Canada wondering IF Canada was even going to be able to afford the “training” program for the pilots and maintence crews…as everything MUST be done in the USA…..at one their immence airfields….with huge runways..in “Perfect” weather….none of which exist in Canada, as we have shorter runways, often operating at forward airstrips in the Arctic in inhospitable weather….so what will we do…special skins must be kept super clean and not wet or snow covered..( NOT happening in Canada)….can they handle the strains of landing in heavy snow or slush conditions?….not tested…..
certainly there is absolutely NO way of knowing WHEN a missile system, even a superior one will make the “list” because the list changes daily….it was however interesting about the AIM 9 being rail fired…I had forgotten that…..so the F35 in reality can actually carry and fire only one missile internally, that being the AIM 120….well at least until the propriatary issues with the Meteor get ironed out and an actual agreement on joint development occurs and then all the development and testing of integrating new components while trying to make it “fit” one plane…..interesting dilema as I see it….
Jay LangleyRoss,
the depth at 180 Meters is not beyond the ability of commercial / salvage divers…and certainly the divers would NOT have to “carry” all the required supplies of the dive mixtures…it is common practice to set “stages” at the various decompression stops…usually including some form of a rest seat and the required mixes for the stop and the next “leg” to the next stop……
I would definately agree that such a dive is far beyond the ability of the average recreational divers, simply in the required equipment and support……and in all likelyhood, even a commercial effort made to dive on this would be a combination of ROV’s, possibly smaller manned subs and perhaps some free or tethered commercial divers…..and they would all be in full heated and full enclosure dive helmets…the effects of the temps could be nullified for the duration of the dive….it is done fairly regularily by divers on the oil platforms, and there are some of those that are in pretty cold waters, the North Sea and Newfoundlands Grand Banks come immediately to mind……
None the less…..it would be a VERY expensive and extensive operation….perhaps the previously made Halifax Cradles could be reused….but chances are it won;t happen….
I know that the Halifax Group in Alberta are hoping for the Mk.III that is in the Irish Sea….that would be likely the next recovery if Canadians get involved….
very interesting anyway…..
Jay Langleyand the circle continues…….
Jay LangleyInteresting, as we have both been to Argentina, and have seen totally opposite things..I certainly wouldn;t call what occured in 2009 a “hickup”…..people with the ability and money fled the country, hid their funds outside of Argentina, the society itself collapsed to the point where people where arming themselves for protection from the armed gangs and thugs on the streets…home invasions and kidnapping for ransom where rampant……the Argentine peso was worth next to nothing….the Government attempted to claim ownership of all foreign investments….they had no funds…and they where bought out by the “Vultures” without whom there would have been no recovery…so what does it take for you say economic collapse?…..
..as I said….in the more “removed” areas…Argentinians do NOT have excess money, the suffer with lax and totally inadaquate emergency services..the ENTIRE Nation having “Volunteer” fire Departments scattered all over…….even BA is Volunteer Departments, depending on which district, most are barely capable…..the Fire Apparatus, the very trucks used to fight fores are bought USED or donated from the UK and North America predominatly, some from Germany and the Netherlands as well…..and many simply are run into the ground and sit broken and unrepaired…….there may have been a boom….but the Nation sure didn;t gain by it…..
and really, current reserves cover the claims?……..BS, Argentina cannot pay what is owed NOW with severe reprocussions…their choice to NOT pay the very same people that pulled them OUT of the last crisis has cast them as personna non grata to the world, financially
Buitreaux, thank you for your input….I understand that it must be intensly difficult to read posts in which your Nation are run down, and your opinion is valid obviously…..and in no way view my points as biggotted…as I am certainly not aiming for that…but as I have mentioned, the “successes” in Argentina have come at the expense more or less of others……be it France, Germany, the USA etc……Argentina hasn;t accomplished “projects”…..
for sure Brazil has become ” more stable”…and it’s inclusion into BRICs has and will help to some degree….yet Brazil may have some “objections” to face from the rest of the world……specifically in regards to the Gripen…..
Now in your opinion, is Argentina in any position to be spending billions of dollars in acquiring these aircraft from Brazil?…..how are the outstanding orders for other aircraft being dealt with?……Do you feel that Argentina has the ability, at this point, to develop the infastructure to acquire and support such a purchase?…especially IF the Gripen comes without the radar and associated electronics and a third party source needs to be found, development of interfacing etc…..is there reasonable grounds to assume that this is economically feasible?…….
I mean, South Africa purchased Gripens, yet they are grounded and some in storage because they cannot afford to fly them, their pilots are loosing the certifications due to a substantial drop in flying hours and the service and maintenance for their aircraft is abismal…and as another BRICs member, South Africa also has a rather large domestic Military manufacturer…with their own radar, missiles and other weapons built “in house”…and also have some of the worlds largest gold, diamond and other mineral resource mining to help with their economy, as well as like Argentina, having a horrid Government……
and please feel free to disagree with my assessment of the Fire and Ambulance services in Argentina if you feel them wrong…..I mean, those are basic services, ones that are assumed and sort of set aside modern societies
Jay LangleyI find it interesting that so much emphasis is being placed upon the HMD…as I understand it, it is an all encompassing helmet that does’nt allow the pilot realtime Mk.1 eyeballs or situational awareness that doesn;t come from sensors etc……so HOW can that be good?…..perhaps I;m alittle old fashioned but in ANY situation there will come a point where human ability will be the deciding factor…..look how long the Apache helmet systems have taken to get the crews really comfortable with them…and that is only partial……the advanced HMS interface has already been seen in the Gripen NG and the Rafale and TyphoonII’s..( ironically, the Gripen, Rafale and the Typhoon II are also ALL capable and proven with the METEOR and all other missile systems used by NATO or others…)….so what is “better” about the F35?…….is it going to be better than the Russian versions?…how about the Chinese versions?…..how will the F35 and all it;s interconnectivity and such, deal with multiple inbound threats that are also “stealth”, HMD, full of sensors and equally or better armed as well as faster…….exactly…pure speculation and hope…….
Don;t get me wrong, I don;t HATE the F35…but people blanketly stating that it is THE best choice in ALL circumstances are enfuriating….what works for one Nation, doesn;t always work for the others……the failasy and fantasy of being “the best” is tiresome and utterly unprovable, until it faces off against a true enemy in a combat situation…….till then it will be selling features and literature promises, endless arguements by individuals compairing absolutely UNKNOWN capabilities from first hand knowledge..seeing as no one here has taken the training or is a pilot for the F35….how many work for LM I have no idea…..but the information is only as good as what is released….for the F35 or any other “comparable” Airframes…..the fighting over idosyntric paper stats or preceived abilities is redundant…..until the RN gets theirs actually in the UK and operational…the Aussies get more than one and get them likewise out the USA and into their own environment ……this whole project reminds me of that super car that is made in Germany…the one where you can BUY it for over a million, BUT the Company keeps it…and you can only drive it under their supervision and at their facility…..WHY BOTHER……..it;’s the same with these F35 “deliveries”…..absolute BS……not one Nation has recieved “THEIR” aircraft at all…….
the divison lines on this are so clearly entrenched, no one will ever change their opinions….so why bother?…….not one post on here can or will sway the opinions of those opposite……and there will NEVER be a solution to it, until they are active and in service with their “owners”…..till then…pure paper speculation……
Jay LangleyAs I said Swerve, the Argentines DID build the TAM series…..with substantial assistance from the Germans, as the entire project was based entirely upon the Marder…….in fact they built several versions including the VCA Palarma ( Self propelled Artillery (155mm) only 19 ever made), the SLAM VCLC ( Self propelled multi rocket launcher, ONLY ONE exists)…the VCTM Self Propelled Mortar (around 50).. the VCTP AFV (approx 200) and the TAM Tank ( including update by ELBIT for gun stabilization..TAM II, approx 25o all marks)…….so, as a domestic produced, foreign ( German ) designed vehicle it was a flop…absolutley NO orders or interest from any other Nation ever worked…the entire production line has been dismantled, and absolutely NO further ones can be built….supplies of parts is next to none as no fore thought went into building stockpiles..in reality there is what there is…..and IF they work they are so far outclassed by even wheeled AFV’s as to be not much of an issue except to perhaps neighbouring Nations like Uraguay and Paraguay……
Your example of the Argentine IA -63…….lets see …yep built what 40 of them…FMA was BOUGHT by Lockhead Martin!….the only planes available are built under LM …….so NO…not an Argentine success……also the ONLY Pampas II’s are used by whom?…you guessed it Argentina…NO interest abroad..another flop!……as for the A-4AR Fightinghawk,,,NOTHING done with the “upgrades” is Argentinian…every piece, every upgrade was from the USA…and specifically from the F16 program….designed in the USA, Made in the USA…all the Argentinians did was assemble various parts into an absolutely outdated platform…each of the 36 A-4’s used where made between 1970 and 1976…..so what do they have?….now after crashes etc…some 34 ish upgraded yet absolutley outclassed by EVERYTHING A-4’s……to Argentina’s shame….the Peruvian Airforce sports an arsenal of MIG 29’s, Dassault Mirage 2000’s, Suhkoi Su 25’s…and Peru is a Nation with next to nothing……yet their Military stands head and shoulders above Argentina’s….
As for their economics, it is in an absolute shambles, they are massively in debt and have renegged on all their payments, they no longer have any rating and not a Nation on the Planet would touch them…..is it mismanaged, absolutely, they have a complete narcassitic nutjob sitting at the head of a extremely poor Government…..with how many complete economic collapses in their past 10 years?……..to a point where the most common job found for people was kidnapping and economic ransoming…bottom line is that Argentina has an extremely poor history in dealing with other Nations, endless cancelled purchases and funding shorts etc…..for decades……is that mismanagement or shear inability to interact with other Nations?…..Argentina under the Junta and before that was a complete nightmare, with the end of the Junta in 1983, Argentina has not had any even remotely successful governments…..sure at one point they sold food to China and made some funds…none of which helped the Nation at all…… outside of BA and Bariloche areas, Argentina is NOT prosperous…they lack even the most basic of civil services…their Fire Departments are so sub standard that there is barely any reason to expect any service from them…Ambulance service, the same……they have a multi tiered Policing that borders on para military….I have actually been TO Argentina as a volunteer, to go and try and train Fire Fighters in basic skills and techniques…they have decades and decades old equipment in pitiful condition, no real training at all….so NO………sorry……Argentina will NOT be able to buy Gripens or anything else…….even planes currently
on order” are questionable….they are INCAPABLE…..as was said earlier……what will they pay with “Sand”?
Sign In
