😮
Now calm down. Don’t let the title make you cringe. :diablo: Let me explain…
There are a lot of airforces in the world with only a basic equipment fit. A few dozen Mig-21s, a coupla choppers, and a rusty C-130 in most cases. Some are attempting to upgrade to newer models, but I was wondering: The latest models of Russian SAMs (S-400 series I think it’s called) are said to be a whole new level of deadly.
For a lot of the smaller third-world nations, wouldn’t it make a lot more sense just to invest in the latest SAM designs than to try to plog along on some third-hand aircraft while saving money?
What advantages do Fighters have over SAMs when it comes to defending a sovereign airspace, especially today with the new SAMs and Stealth?
I’m sorry, but your reasoning is flawed. Most third-world countries (basically all of sub-saharan Africa except South Africa) and many in south-east Asia are confronted with internal unrest (civil war, insurgents, rebels, etc.) Aerial sovereignty is low on their priority list – most don’t even have the necessary radar coverage to detect any airspace violations anyway.
They need ground attackers – that’s why the most purchased combat aircraft in sub-saharan Africa for the last decade has been the Su-25, not the MiG-29. Not to mention that almost everybody in the region has a few Mi-24s…
Also, in Central and South America a Tucano / A-37B / Bronco will always be cheaper and more effective in dealing with drug-runners aircraft than any SAM system, present or future.
Sign In
