JoeinTXGet yourself a decent sociology book and you will discover that there are far better and more urgently needed things Brazil could be spending $2billion+ on.
Much as though I am interested in planes, that doesn’t stop me, at least, from seeing the broader picture.
It doesn’t take a sociology book to understand the concept of sovereignty and peace. As a nation, you should be able to police and defend it’s rightful borders as necessary and needed. The broader picture is this………….Brazil needs to be able to watch and meet any and all who try to illegally trespass upon it’s territory and dispatch them with due force. What the Hell is wrong about that…….???
And where is the ‘perceived threat’ such that Brazil needs fast jets? South America generally is free of such beasts and I congratulate them on such. When all the fine words are put to one side, we’re talking weapons here…
… and the last thing South America needs is a local arms race.
Oh, let’s say the Venezuelian situation or Peru. Brazil has EVERY right and need to invest in a supreme air defense system. Do you deny them this? If so, why? Is Argentina or Chile about to attack? No, but Chavez’s Venuzaula and the Peruvian consort cause angst.
Don’t fight the Brazilian buys of late……….they are looking to up-arm but not “over arm” in the face of curren issues. The Chileans are here as well.
JoeinTXThe impacts?
Probably not much overall. While the F-35 is shaping up to be a supreme air defence aircraft….stealth, AESA, range, internal capacity, etc…..and much more capable than the F-16/F-18 in that role there is the reality of politics.
L-M is building both aircraft but one is being assembled in Ft. Worth and the other in greater Atlanta……..different Representatives and Senators involved among the various points of final build, contracters, and suppliers.
The Air Force will ultimately get more Raptors than the 183 currently slated……the USAF wedged-in money for an extra 20 over and above that number this week. More is sure to come as various pols, Dem and Rep, guage their constituents in the affected areas and push for extra funds “here and there.”
I can see short-term cuts in the F-35 being used to fund F-22 buys in other areas which will then be reversed in later years to add -35s and sure-up districts. I can see the DoD cutting, say 250 F-35s, from the current order in an effort to shift that money to the F-22……..only to re-allocate that money years down the road.
Seeing as how the F-35 line will still be open in 20 years, shorting it now to shift bucks to the F-22 would be understandable. Watching Congressional members add F-35 orders in 20 years time is also understandable.
JoeinTXThe “French” problem is a combination of all mentioned above.
The Rafale is the most adavanced, yet still the most un-finished product, that Dassualt has offered over its history. So much of the aircraft’s development….AESA/electronic package/ATG suite….is still not quite perfected but Dassault asks potential customers to pay for them. While Eurofighter, Lockheed-Martin, and Boeing are producing aircraft with part or all of these capabilities at equal or less cost……..it’s hard for Dassault to make ground. It’s a “trust us and pay us up-front for something we haven’t proven yet even though others may have” approach that when combined with the prices quoted to customers has proven tough to swallow. Consider then that most French defense sales proposals of late have been package deals involving land or sea or civilian projects and the buyer says……”what the phuck, we just want some airplanes” and they pass.
In the 1950/60s, France could be depended upon to be a country that could supply modern combat aircraft to any buyer for the money….Ouragons…Mysters….Vatours…..Mirages…..Magisters…..a wonderful group. In 2007, Dassault has ONE offering of extreme price and unproven overall capability but they want a premium to possess one. This is not Dassault’s historic market and they have the problem of today.
JoeinTXIn the case of the Rafale, I think both services had to give a little to get the airplane they wanted.
-aDa: The Rafale is heavier than a pure land-based version would have been due to the extra strengthening of the airframe for the rigors of carrier ops. Cut that requirement and you could shave some weight and gain some speed, range, and payload from the same airplane.
MN: The desire for folding wings was dropped in favor of a simpler, ligther spar design. This would have been preferrable (even with the delta wing of the Rafale) for a carrier plane but was killed early on to save weight, complexity, and cost for commonality sake.
Honestly, though, as a poster stated above……the records of air forces operating carrier-designed aircraft has been pretty good over the years. F-4….A-4…..A-7…..F-18…..Buccaneer…..etc……and they’ve done pretty well for themselves.
JoeinTXA shame too because the RoKAF has a fleet of airplanes with such character
Ah yes, a “character” fleet…..:)
Nations like South Korea, India, Turkey, Greece, Japan, etc. have air arms which remind of the golden days of the USAF (or RAF or Luftwaffe or AMI for that matter) when there was such variety and specialization in fleets.
Multi- and omni-role platforms have taken over in so many capacities, and due to economics and advances in technology often correctly so, but they don’t offer necessarily the same flavor of the past.
I do love to see F-4s and A-7s and SHs and A-37s and F-1s and Mirage IIIs, and F-111s and F-5s and such still in operation today though their days are numbered.
JoeinTXI too am not unfriendly to the -Z and -Y iterations of the Bell line. Instead of wondering why the USMC did not follow the Army’s lead with the Apache and Blackhawk…….imagine the Army following the Marine’s lead in further developing the Cobra and Huey?
As for the Huey, the Blackhawk is obviously a more capable carrier, but, the Huey is no slouch in its current form.
As for the Cobra vs. Apache debate, I wonder if the various improvements in the Cobra over the last 20 years would not have met the basic Army requirements at much better cost than the Apache? What if the army was fielding 1000 -Zs right now as opposed to 700 Apaches? Incorporating mast sights and Long Bow……would the money saved on developing/rebuilding/partial new pruchase for a larger numer of advanced Cobras be better than the Apache program?
Threats have definitely changed. We’re no longer planning on massed armor battles in lo-vis environments. But, of the two, I now tend to believe the Cobra in advanced form could be the most adaptable to both the high-threat modern battlefield and the anti-insurgent low tech battlefield for the money spent.
Modern helos as we know them are not getting noticeably faster or higher-flying. They are getting more advanced and in need of greater range and payload in order to respond to today’s threats.
If I’m a defence minister today deciding between the two, I lean toward the -Z when price, capability, and maintenance are factored in.
The Apache has done well considering its build. I simply put forward the thought that maybe the Cobra and renewed advanced forms may well could have done the same role at less cost and similar results.
JoeinTXVery interesting thread here.
While admittedly appearing pretty limited, these smaller conversions do possess range and more room for avionics fits that many tactical combat aircraft can’t fit. EMBRAER has been pushing a true maritime patrol version of its EJ series and it could be a nice fit for a lot of countries.
However, having a few Falcons or HSs on-hand and working-up a way to hang an anti-ship missile of off them in an emergency could be a nice multiplier against less advanced opponents.
As for the Argentines, yeah, I’m not sure what prompted any effort to fire Exocets from their non-combat aircraft since they obviously didn’t have enough missiles to go around.
JoeinTX@danrh
Nice post with good points, but:
The Super Hornet is an interim buy. It will serve from 2010 until 2020 or a little beyond. Lets consider what its replacing, the opposition and the alternatives.
Honestly, after sinking $6 AusBil into a pretty capable and modern system, I can’t help but believe the SHs will be around longer than that especially if the F-35 order ultimately gets cut short as a result of their presence.
Nonetheless, a mix of 75 +/- F-35s and the SHs would be pretty good and a near one-for-one replacement for its current force……which is rare indeed in today’s world.
JoeinTXIt’s not a question on how well a pilot knows his plane, it’s more to do with the Russian beast being better equiped for fighting- especially having them fitted with the TVC engines. Now if the Super Bug was fitted with TVC engines I could start to have some respect for it, heck even canards would make a nice start to improving the manouverability, but the American’s as so interested in their own forces having the best that they have forgotten to take time out to actually look at what they are up against.
Thrust-vectoring is as much an air-show crowd pleaser as it is a real-world necessity. Today, unlike the premature thoughts of the 1950s-60s, technology has progressed to the point that close-air fights are rare to none. Advances in stealth characteristics, AESA, AWACS, missile technology, and sensors makes the liklihood of any close quarters “knife-fight” a very remote possibility. The fighters of today and tomorrow will use radar/missile capabilities and increased lack of detection to outsmart and overwhelm their opponents…….not outmanuever them in a WW2 style dog-fight.
The Flanker series of planes boasts some of the most impressive statistics ever seen on a plane- it’s sort of like a modern day Harrier going up against a Finger in te Falklands!
That is a terribly description of future air combat. Harrier vs. Mirage has as much to do with SH vs. Su-27 as do the stats of the SE-5 against the Dr.5. Little to none….
As for the topic here, for the RAAF who is apparently petrified at losing the F-111 the Strike Eagle is the only realistic close alternative available. Even at that, the F-15 is no real Aardvark replacement. However, it is better than the SH at performing this role which leaves me perplexed at this decision.
The SH is not an F-111 replacement….yet it’s being bought as a stop-gap during the F-111’s phase out?
The Strike Eagle is closer and would not cost that much different.
Supporting the SH is marginally as big a change as supporting the Eagle since the Hornet and SH are truly different aircraft.
The SH and F-35 are utlimately quite similar in capability………yet vary most in stealth characteristics.
I am a big proponent of the Super Horner, today’s “Rhino”, and want to see them fly for years to come. But, I do not understand this buy and will pan it as a very bad decision considering the circumstances.
JoeinTXOMG is that where the UFOs land?
Yep, and where they are tested and reverse-engineered and where alien life forms are interrogated and interned. That’s the place, all right.
No doubt that some “unusual” stuff occurs here, but, it’s certainly more terrestrial than extra-terrestrial.
Tacit-Blues and BirdsofPrey are more likely than alien saucer-derived megafighters and time machines.
JoeinTXFunny, that LTV LWF candidate looks a lot like the Eurofighter Typhoon of today.
In the 1970s, the F-14 was absolute top of the line. Engine issues aside, the radar/missile combo was second to none and it had a “sexy” factor that can’t be denied.
Not to dredge up an old thread, but, it’s overall impact was probably pretty minimal. An evolved F-4 could have provided much of what the Navy wanted through the early 1990s at lesser cost. Phoenix? Not likely 4, but at least two could have been carried on wing pylons along with 4 Sparrow and 2 Sidewinder with improved radar.
The USN could have lived comfortably with improved Phantoms throughout this time and done so at less cost to the taxpayer.
Grumman obvious pitched a highly modified F-14 to the USAF as a F-106 replacement, but the lack of a credible Soviet bomber threat against the “lower 48 states,” meant that there was no pressing need
By this time, late 60s/early 70s, the “bomber gap” was an obvious anomaly with nothing other than the Bear even close to being a continental threat. Thus, the point of the F-15 was an aircraft capable of medium range defense over Europe in a contested environment rather than an interceptor over the homeland. Ironically, short of maneuvaribility, the F-4 was totally competent in this arena as well for less money.
F-14? Unique and an icon? Yes. Indispensbile and irreplaceable then or today? No.
JoeinTXAn air arm’s doctrine should be a direct response to threat it is most likely to face. Resulting, the aircraft in its inventory reflect the perceived threat in their capabilities and roles.
Example:
An island nation, fairly distant from it’s most likely threat, will invest in naval and air defenses foremost. Maritime patrol, ASW, air-defence, AEW make the top of the list for this country. If you have a vast amount of ocean between you and you’re likely opponent, then you will be spending money on stopping them at sea and in the air long before they can hit your shore. To that, close air support and tactical airlifting are likely to get little attention and may be shifted to the ground forces for concern in this situation. However, AEW and aerial refuelling are key components of their long-range defense strategy. The naval composition also figures heavily into the overall strategy.
-This force is likely composed of smaller numbers of more capable/expensive aircraft which may require more preparation but with the advanced alert times are perfectly able to respond in time.
A landlocked country will face completely opposite threats as it attempts to defend against enemies very near at hand. No threat from the sea means little is paid to maritime roles, but, the potential for huge land battles on/inside its borders means that large amounts are invested in CAS and battlefield surveillance and point air defence. Aerial refuelling has less impact as the battles expected occur well within range of airfields. AEW is important, but smaller and lesser capable models available today can fulfill the requirements of this much more compact war zone. The army’s capability in helicopters, transport, and advanced detection figure heavily into this air force’s operation.
-This force likely buys larger numbers of cheaper/less advanced aircraft which are easy to maintain and can launched within minutes as opposed to hours. The job here is battlefield air supremacy and air support overpowering large land forces at short range.
These are the extremes and many countries face a mix of these possibilities. Referring to I.D., especially toward the end when they have enough aircraft, but, are short on pilots, I’m not sure what those conditions would warrant regarding training and qualification. We’ve never been in them. An ANG pilot who qualified in the F-16 5 years ago but who has since spent his time flying KC-135s I can’t believe would be allowed into a -16 cockpit without a refresher check-out. In the I.D. scenario, hell, with nothing to lose, throw him in and see what happens, right…? However, the crop-duster pilot who last flew F-4s in the 1970s doesn’t hop into an F-18 and take on the enemy….;)
JoeinTXColonel Marksman, your admiration of the A-10 is not without reason and it is a remarkable aircraft.
However, it is not invincible and the threat world around it is changing as is the technology available to all today.
The minimum caliber to significantly damage the A-10 is 30mm, and the amount of punishment it can take is almost god-like as far as aircraft are concened.
You did correct this in another post, but, 23mm was the designed threashold for any specific hit on an engine, tail or the cockpit region…..not the entire airplane as whole. A single 23mm round can do serious damage to this airplane and/or bring it down. The A-10, much like the commonly ill-referred “bullet-proof glass” is not bullet-proof….simply more resistant to other types and still vulnerable.
As we all know, AA missiles don’t neccessarily hit the aircraft and rarely do; instead, they explode in close proximity, and use shrapenel to rip the aircraft apart. Shrapenel isn’t enough to take down an A-10.
Oh, yes it can. Like any aircraft today, a close enough spray of metal metal fragments can damage multiple components and render the aircraft uncontrollable. Shrapnel from a near-miss can damage engines/control surfaces/hydraulic lines/instrumentation like any other in the right conditions.
America’s slowly turning to the same stuff the Japanese had slightly before WWII. All-superior aircraft, but low on munitions, and low on armor.
I simply cannot see any rationale behind this comment.
Yes, its much like the Stuka, but imagine the Stuka with the armor and ruggedness of a B-17 bomber
You are comparing apples and elephants here. The B-17 had a robust basic structure and self-sealing tanks….like most U.S. aircraft of WW2. But it was not especially up-armored or imprenetrable, thus, the practice of many B-17/-24 crewmen lining the aircraft’s interior with scavenged flack jackets to shield against against flak fragments. The Stuka was similar, but, designed for a completely and totally different job.
Ok. Send in a AESA Super Hornet Block II (or any JSF for that matter) when there’s an innumerable amount of SAMs, high threat territory with unknown numerous other defenses to strike a small group of tanks… IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY. Oh, btw, MiGs might be patrolling too.
That’s suicide even for a squadron of Harriers, helicopters, or anything really. We need the targets cleared without the help of ground support (thus, no combat controllers with their little lasers).
If this is hard for SHs to do, it would be impossible for A-10s to do. A-10s are not sent into this threat arena. Innumerous attempts to degrade enemy air defense will have to be successfully completed before the A-10 goes in…….it is not fed into a high-threat area in this manner. In fact, it will be the SHs, JSFs, -16CJs, Prowlers, etc that are fed into this arena to make the A-10 operations likely. Otherwise, they stay well clear.
Try shooting down an airplane with 900lbs of titanium steel around the pilot that can fly with 1 wing, land without ‘gear, and your machinegun ammunition BOUNCES OFF the aircraft.
1. The titanium you mention is strictly the “bathtub” surrounding the pilot. It is not the entire airplane.
2. No airplane can fly “with one wing”….it is an aerodynamic impossilibility. The A-10 is designed to fly with serious damage to one wing, but, not without it and depending on the amount of damage it could come down very quickly.
3. As I state above, the A-10 is not uber-armored……30/.50/12.7mm/etc. rounds do not “bounce off” of 80% of the A-10’s airframe. These rounds will penetrate and very likely damage large parts of the aircraft.
4. It can fly with one engine assuming that the damage to that engine is isolated and has not affected any other significant part of the aircraft….just like any othe twin-engine aircraft in the air today. One gun round to an engine causing any type of collateral damage and fragmentation could result in damage to the second engine or control surfaces or both and bring it down.
1. An Apache? Great helicopter, no doubt, but it can’t take the punishment or fly as fast as aircraft, simple as that.
The Apache was designed to take roughly the same punishment, especially in/around the crew compartment area, as the A-10. They were designed roughly around the same time with the same threats in mind. It, being obviously a helicopter, is not as fast as the A-10 and was never intended to be. It is however more adaptable, more responsive, and closer to the battlefield than the A-10. The Cobra’s capability is similar.
Anyone’s idea of “more modern” or “bigger threats” etc., etc., is really invalid.
No, they’re not. Modern threats from vastly more capable MANPADs, AESA, advanced AAMs, and the like make A-10s loitering around a modern battlefield with minimal support a non-starter.
Take the three primary conflicts in which the A-10 has participated:
1. Gulf War 1-Iraqi air defenses were seriously dealt with long before the A-10 entered the fray. The Iraqi air force had been destroyed on the ground of fled early on and the SAM systems was relentlously attacked by SEAD aircraft to the point of ineffectiveness. The Iraqi ground forces possessed precious little in the way of point air defense or man-portable systems and never could concentrate them.
2. Kosovo-Another scenario where opposing aircraft were absent and a fragmented SAM/anti-air system was summerially dealt with well in advance of it use.
3. Iraq war-there was no air force to counter and a very limited anti-air capability. Still, the A-10 was not present in the action until days into the conflict. As soon as what remaining Iraqi air defenses had been dealt with reasonably, then it entered action, but, not before.
What this all comes down is the A-10 is not a “first day” airplane. It was never designed to be and never will against any capable enemy. It can operate in an arena of reasonably secure airspace but is very vulnerable in contested air.
Colonel Marksmen, your biggest single misconception here is in believing that future CAS will be done by manned “mud movers” down low and slow. Technology has moved this role into a different arena with the progression of laser-guided technology and the advent of GPS and items such as the SDB. No longer does an aircraft need to be down low and physically aiming guns at a target to hit it. No longer do you need a line-of-sight TV or IR image to target an ATGM.
B-52s and F-16s are flying at altitude today over Iraq receiving targetting data to hit tanks, troop formations, and gun nests with precision weapons all well outside of anti-air capabilities.
The A-10 is very useful in a relatively threat-free environment of eradicating ground targets….no doubt. Add any escalation of threats and it becomes increasingly vulnerable. Helicopters are vulnerable too, but, have even more evasiveness and can operate much closer to the battlefield and be as destructive in low-level, low-threat environments.
Hey, the A-10 has a role and that’s why a few hundred will be kept around while the F-35 is introduced and until UAVs have matured. But, it’s job will be taken by both of these aircraft….one operating high with precision and the other operating low and without the potential loss of pilot.
As I started, it’s great to be a nostalgic fan, but the realities of the battlefield and technology dictate you must react. If not, the U.S. would still be flying F-105s and B-66s and S-3s. There are numerous fan groups of these types around who decry their passing but history has yet to prove them right.
In ending, future CAS is the work of:
A. airfraft flying at alititude with GPS/radar, yet capable of avoiding medium level anti-air.
B. UAVs. As the technology develops, more unmanned units will be present on the battlefield and increasingly respondent to the immediate battlefield commander.
C. rotorcraft, potentially unmanned, which can operate nearby and respond quickly. They will be increasingly LO as time passes.
JoeinTXOf course a almost 30 year old Iranian F-14A is not equal to a new build Super Hornet with the latest AESA Radar and so on…………..
Therein, you’ve said a mouthfull.
Had Grumman developed and pitched to the U.S.N over the years it might be sitting in better shape, but, it didn’t.
The Super Hornet is a prime aircraft with supreme ability and it will occupy USN carrier decks for decades to come.
Still, Super Hornets will eat Tomcats in potential future engagements with Iran should they arise. Case closed……
JoeinTX
As a platform the F-14 is clearly Superior to either the F-15E or F/A-18F…….Yet, it was never developed as such and was retired early so its a moot point regardless.
A keen thought. For early 1970’s technology, the F-14 is king.
It was not developed while its kin were and we are now in 2007 with F-15SK/Gs and the F-18 E/F. Woulda, coulda, shoulda……..great exercises in 20/20 hindsight but not efforts at reality.
IRIAF F-14s vs. USN Super Hornets? Money on the SH to own the day…..:)
Sign In
