AurelA new government doesn’t change the world as it is. Wether there is no enemy, or they depend on the U.S. for defense.
They are commited to the JSF. Australian companies got their share on the programme. And why should they ask for more Industry-participation ? They will never build own fighter jets. The opportunity was some years ago.
But at this time Russian companies where not exactly great in fullfilling their obligations.
I remind the problems the Luftwaffe had with it’s MiG’s. Individual aircraft where grounded for more then six months, waiting for spares.
Today much money is already invested, and judging by the many nations already commited to the JSF, it will at least be produced in large numbers.
And I really don’t believe the flankers in the region would be a problem for the australian hornets at the moment. They got (or soon get) AWACS and tankersupport, have those large radarstations… PAK-FA is the big unknown. Let’s wait and see how both birds perform when they materialize.
AurelDo you really think the Australians will ever use their aircraft in combat against their northern neighbours ? I don’t. They will be used to support the US. Nothing else. They could rename the RAAF to US Air Force Australia. So why should they fly something not american ? To prevent an american monopoly on fighter jets ?
The americans will protect their sphere of interest, so it makes sense to purchase american weapons and ground equipment.
IF they really had some problems with their neighbourhood, and IF they would have to fight them by themselves… Carlo Kopp would be happy man. 😀
AurelAdd to this that the complete infrastructure had to be altered. Additionally the costs of integrating weapons and adapt the avionics. The Indians where somehow succesful in doing so, but do you expect an order the size of the Indian deal ? Including weapons, spares, infrastructure, customization,… The JSF or F-18E will be cheaper to buy and to run. And heck what do you want to learn from assembling a Sukhoi ? They are pretty conservativ in design, don’t you think ? Where are the new materials/bonding methods ? 😮
AurelSad news. I really liked that idea of having much space on a small ship.
I hoped that the replacemnts of the ‘standard’-frigates (Bremen, Kortenaer) and the type 23 could be based on the same platform. Lürssen had a similar, but by far not that advanced trimaran design. 🙁
AurelHammer, if I got you right, you want only a showcase fighter ? Not running it, except for the saturday disco trip ?
If I’m not totally ill informed, then FAB pilots are already below their envisaged flight hours.
Now you get a fighter f* expansive to run. In Germany/Hungary the costs per hour of the MiG-29 where about 50.000 €. I guess Brasil has lower manpower costs and would get the spares at lower prices from the Russians, and those spares are available on demand. 25-30.000 $ should be at best the price tag for a hour on the Sukhoi. Compare this to the 3000-5000 $ of the Gripen. Quite a difference, don’t you think ? The Gripen could replace a Mirage/F-5 without major increasements in running costs. And Gripen would be a large improvement in capablities. I guess you don’t doubt this.
Maybe the Flanker is cheaper to buy, but has this any influence on the budget of the FAB ? Would the FAB get this “saved” money for training it’s pilots ?
Additionally, how many airframe life do you buy with a Flanker(Gripen) ?
To make it short, would the Brasilian government be willing to spend enough money on pilot training ? If yes, hell yeah, my vote for the flanker. If no, then the Gripen is still a outstanding piece of hardware. It is much more pilot-friendly then the Flanker. Reducing the flying hours would be not that critical in the Gripen, considering flight safety…
AurelHey I don’t know what you are complaining about. Considering the size of Greek economy, it got a really impressive airforce. Your last F-16’s are the newest within old NATO. If you replace your A-7’s with M-346, this seems ok for me.
And if your government now seeks to bridge the time to JSF, well then it is their decision. Maybe you get some workshare, if you hurry to join the JSF club ?
AurelIf it is only a silly law that prevents you from getting a cost effektive naval aviation, then it is time to change this.
Since your airforce want’s a fighter with the running costs of a bomber, and your navy needs something capable, too, my conclusion is that you need the Su-34.
I’m serious. With it’s R-73 & R-77 capability, the second radar, it’s looong range and absolutely unbeatable strike capability it got everything navy and arforce need.
And if this law is a problem, well, the Royal Navy used to declare their bases to ships. HMS Ganges, for example was a Royal Navy base.
AurelFor what reason Brasilia operates those carriers ? Ok, fleet defense and a bit fire support I guess. Since the carried aircraft are way out of being competetive, it may be seen only as an afford to keep the abilities. Hm, I would rather buy some land based Flankers, and use them in the way the Chinese and Indians do. Et voila, thee FAB gets its desired aircraft. 😀
If you really like to keep them for whatever reason, I would try to get some Harriers. For shure cheaper to install a skyjump on the Sao Paulo, then to modify/ built AMX-N.
AurelIn todays silly transformational wars, the combat helicopter could be exactly what is needed to protect the overstretched and underprotected supplylines.
Additionally they can act as highly mobile fire support platform.
I think the Marines used such tactics pretty succesful in Iraq.
AurelOf course the Flanker is more expensive but the offset purchases of Brazilian goods by Russia were about four times larger then the total cost of the 12 aircraft… and at the same time it´s a small number of planes flying a small number of hours a year.
I don’t doubt that this is the case. I doubt that the money Brasil earns with this offsets, will find it’s way to the FAB. They will get a plane to expansive to run. All major conflict in the last decades have shown something: pilot training is more important then the “better” aircraft.
AurelWho wants Gripens is FAB not Mr. Lula´s gang.
Maybe the Swedish did not pay the 7-10 % comission payments, that are routine in southern America ? On the other hand, for such complications they teamed up with BAe Systems, they know how things are going. :confused:
However, the Gripen is the only aircraft hat makes sense to me. The Flanker is at best “only” seven times as expansive to run as the Gripen. I don’t think the budget of the FAB will be increased, to ensure pilots get their training flights.
The Flanker maybe better considering the size of the country, but not considering the size of the budget.
The Mirage is something in between, but is not as good as the Gripen in cooperation with the Erieyes.
AurelIf Brasilia is really interested in Gripen, I’m sure they would get used -A/B’s from Sweden. Remember those story about Thai-chicken for Gripens ? $ 15million a piece could be affordable, I assume. Saab is pretty quick in integrating the Meteor, deliveries starting in 2006/7 would avoid this AMRAAM problem. Only flaw is the missing refuelling-probe in the A-models. But I’m sure this could be fixed relatively cheap.
AurelUdaloy/ Sovremenny are my favourite modern ships of the last century. Weaponry and looks are great. Udaloy got the better looks, Sovremenny the meaner weapons.
From all those new designs I really like the new German frigates, Sachsen and it’s predecissor the Brandenburg class. I like those streight lines. All those LCF, Tulwar and new Chinese Ships look more or less the same with their curved bows. Simply boring.
But really great are katamarans or trimarans. I like the looks and the ideas behind the design.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/trimaran/index.html#trimaran1
AurelOh, thanks for the advice.
Maybe they should have gone for Gripen, it always looked as the obvious choice.
But they were simply pissed, that Gripen international tried to ripp them off. As well as LM thought, they simply need not fullfill every requirement, because it’s F-16 was offered at a pretty good price.
Anyway, if someone reads the whole thread, he could think Austrian EF’s will have no IFF. This is wrong. They tried to buy it without software. The idea was to save the money now, and buy the software later in xxx years.
But this is old news, since it was only a proposal in an internal paper, leaked to the local press, but rejected by the Austrian MoD.
By the way, they would try the same tricks, if they had gone for Gripen or Viper. Most Austrians seem to think Jesus and the saints do the job better then any fighter. And that at a very competetive price.
AurelThey requested an interceptor, and they got one. Both contenders had a very special idea, what the Ausrians need.
BAe Systems tried to sell the Gripen at an unbelievable high price. That is the hole story behind it. They where too shure to win.
The Austrian military wanted a fighter with as many commonality as possible with it’s neighbours, to take part in international (EU-) missions. Originally they asked for more then 30. Later this was reduced to 24, as the minimum for operational service. However, politics reduced this numbers to 18, leaving many questions how to use them properly. But for shure the intensions of taking part in international operations were now obsolete.
So step by step things where altered. It started with the cancelation of BVR missiles and is ending now with proposed savings in software.
It is a somehow strange approach. Imagine you buy a new pc, and try to get a better price by excluding the mousedriver.
Sign In
