F1s more capable than MiG-29s? Especially MiG-29Ms?

That’s ridiculously wrong.

Sorry about making such a statement as more capable

We all know that the Mig 29m is better in the A2A role and it has a A2G capability I just felt that F1-FM2000 with western guided weapons and recce-pod plus French A2A missiles would be better in the A2G and recce role with the ability to hold its own in A2A in the right hands might be a better all-rounder

But I am not that up on the A2G and recce capability of Mig-29m

Only a foreign adviser with something to gain would come up with that law madness oh well there loss could been doing there own QRA by now with F1’s and they would have been more capable than the Migs

you are right they are different classes my point is that buying the cheap and highly capable 146 with a view to extending the life on other more expensive assets and to also get a better understanding of how the UK will operate assets like A400m and to find out just how tactical A400m will be and indeed if the UK needs a smaller type

Maybe if we buy 8 more 146 C3 to go with the two we have we could reduce the work load on the 8 lowest FI airframes in the C-130J fleet allowing these more flexible aircraft to go on closer to they intended out of service date of 2030 also the loss of a 8 million pound 146 on the ground is more acceptable than the loss of a 46 million pound C-130 this in view of the US losing 6 Harriers on the ground on a highly defended base

Maybe a better stopgap fighter would have been Mirage F1 MF2000 from the french as it was a type they had operated in a lesser form before and would have been a good multi-role platform and could have been there in numbers by now and given them time to think what next

I think I’m guilty of poor phrasing! I know that the 146 was designed or rather intended to operate from dirt strips, but I think it’s clear that not many potential operators believed BAE’s advertising and, to be perfectly honest, neither do I.

I have always thought that the four engine layout of the 146 was due to the fact that suitable engines to make it into a twin weren’t available when the aeroplane was being designed. I think it’s true that such engines became available later, but BAE wouldn’t do the necessary re-design. I think it’s also true that the four engined layout has always counted against the aeroplane. Why buy a four engined jet when twin engined turboprops were available?

Regards

So now we can see that 146 can and dose operate from dirt strips and as you still have concerns over operating cost so using Bae’s figures of £2500 per hour taking out aircrew and training as this is the same for all types remembering the saving of 26,953,500 million pounds means you can operate 146 for 10000 hours before we even get to the C-27 off the line price and that dose not take in to account the cost of support systems for C-27

if I was looking for a battle field helicopter I would go for Lynx wildcat not a true attack helicopter but it is all weather day and night capable has a good weapon system can carry troops and under slug loads plus operate off the back of a ship its an outstanding all round helicopter

I also think F-16 is a good start and they should get a good number of SU-30 I just feel if you are building an air force from the ground up as they are the fewer types the better

Which is why I started this thread off! The British armed forces seem to be equipped and trained for expeditionary warfare and while the Atlas and Globemaster are fine for strategic purposes and can be used tactically if needed, they seem to be too big for the tactical role and the Chinook too small.

BTW, an earlier contributor mentioned that the 146 can carry 100 troops. Not exactly true I think when the troops are being carried to/from a combat zone where they would have an awful lot of carry-on luggage!

Regards

Sorry you are right working on an average of 127kg per man 146 can carry 80-85 troop from what I can see C-27 can carry 60 troops . C27 costs 53 million dollars that works out at 34,953,500 pounds so if you buy 1 146-300 in Afghan spec at 8 million pound that leaves you 26,953,500 pounds to operate it so if we take this on a bit if you work on a 1 for 1 and buy 10 airframes 146 will save you just a nats under 270 million pounds now C-130 cost 42,867,500 pounds so with the money you just saved by buying 146 over C-27 you can buy 6 C-130j’s and still have some 1,400,000 pound in your pocket plus both type are already in RAF service and fully supported world wide and to top it off the ability to carry two and half times more troops and kit with a very good tactical and semi-tactical split

Thing is given a choice between buying a small number of C-27J or another one or two C17 and the RAF is clearly going to spend money on the latter!

The only reason the extra BAE-146 are being purchased is because the C130K are nearly gone and they need a type to act as an in-theatre transport through to the full draw down from Afghanistan. It is more then likely post pull out that we are not going to be intervening in anything for a long time that requires a tactical in theatre transport. The BAE-146 fills a gap and by the time we get to 2020 the RAF will operate a rather strategic rather then tactical weighted transport fleet. Whilst the A400M is bigger then a C130 it is being designed with tactical in-theatre operations in mind so it will have to be pressed into service in that role on the adhoc times we need it and if we god forbid get dragged into another Afghanistan style deployment we can look at better solutions then!

Considering the vast size of the country and huge distances between bases it makes perfect sense for the Australian air force to operate a tactical transport like the C-27J just to support day to day operations in peace time for time critical requirements. The UK other hand is a small country and personnel and equipment can drive between bases in a matter of hours! If we need to move something urgently it can be on a truck and up the M1 within hours. The equivalent situation in Australia might take days by road!

I do agree that at this time the UK is going down the strategic line which as Mali has proven is the right one the ability to troops and kit to a new theatre fast is something the UK needs with the likes of the Falklands. However to not take advantage of the cheap highly useful semi-tactical 146 for moving troops and palliated loads around Europe and the middle East instead of wasting airframe and engine hour on the few highly expensive A400m we will have is mad as I keep saying for the cost of 1 400m you can buy 2 146-300QC and have one million pounds to operate them that not to say we don’t need the 22 400m’s

Also as you said if we go down the C-295 MPA route then 8 or 10 C-295m would be good move