maurobaggioThe FAA has rejected many supperior aircraft to a modernized F-5, or dead end Mirages F-1. They want something better and it appears it will be the, still to be developed in full, Brasilian Gripen. The critical stop gap still seems to be Kfirs from the israelies.
On a personal level, I dissaprove the Gripen as the main fighter for the future. I think it comes short in many mission profiles. Still, it could be good. We will see.
I have found out it very interesting your commentary about the interest from Argentina in the development process of the Gripen NG for Brazil, however this great fighter has been won a turnaround competition with 18 years for elapsed time while others were also pointed out as winners before the Gripen NG like:
2002: Su 35M Flanker
2010: Rafale F3
2012: F/A 18 E/F Super Hornet
2013: Gripen NG
In fact the Gripen NG were benefited from political problems between Brazil and France in 2010 because of the nuclear deal with Iran, and with US in 2013 in reason of the NSA scandal , beyond that the Su 35E Flanker were disqualified by Brazil in 2009 for had not been meeting the requirements of 100% ToT for Brazil.
If Brazil had been opted by: Su 35E, Rafale F3 or F/A 18 E / F instead the Gripen NG the Argentina would also shown the same interest as it did with the Gripen NG in 2014?
Luckily for the UK that Brazil has not chosen the Su 35M in 2002 as well the Su 35E in 2013, after all I do not think the UK would have been capable to convince the Russia the Su 35E should not sell for Argentina,at least with Rafale F 3 from France maybe there were a possibility.
To bad luck for Argentina and also Brazil that Gripen NG has been winner the competition from Brazil, since that Brazil has been lost the opportunity to sale fighters for Argentina, once among all the competitors the Gripen NG were exactly that on which the UK could block easiest the sale for Argentina.
Anyway if Argentina has been interest in the Gripen NG which belongs for a UK company, apparently the Argentine government should not have any restrictions for other possible source from new fighters or even second hand fighters.
maurobaggioCan the planned Brazilian build Gripen NG be builded without UK’s IP and components ? Because if Argentine still hoping for that, ommiting UK’s IP and components seems the only answered. However whether this is possible or affordable is another questions. Seems omitting UK’s part can turned out to be redesigning Gripen to completely new variance. I’m highly doubted Brazil wanted to do that for simply creating variance that can be supplied to Argentina.
I guess it would be more easier for Argentina to acquire the Eurofighter Typhoon than the Gripen NG, since no matter where the Gripen NG it will be assembled, the design rights belong at the SAAB and Sweden, as well the SAAB has belongs at the BAe (British Aerospace ) which is a company from UK, I guess that it would be hardly to get this , once the Brazil could not changed even a single nut without authorization from SAAB and the UK.
For Brazil could sell the Gripen NG for Argentina would need authorizations from: Sweden, UK and US.
Even if it could be possible to remove all British components from the Gripen NG, still would need to obtain the authorization from: US and Sweden.
As the US and Sweden has been very aligned with the United Kingdom, the possibility should be highly remote for the the Gripen NG to be sold for Argentina.
All this debate about Gripen NG for Argentina was initiated by the own Argentina Government , however so far I didn’t see anyone had been managed to explain why Argentina did this proposal that could be almost impossible to accomplish because the Falklands issue with UK.
After all if Argentina would have been capable to pay US$ 3.600 billions for 24 Gripen NG at a cost of US $ 150 million each unit, then why the Argentina has not been starting a competition since the refusal from UK to sell the Gripen NG for Argentina?
maurobaggioDear Swerve,
In first place it was just a joke: How can Argentina to avoid an invasion from Falklands?
The military presence from United Kingdom in the Falklands has only became effective after the war in 1982 which was started by Argentina. Before that war in the Falklands there was not even an runway long enough to be used as the Air Base for conventional fighters, or even a military contingent to react against the invasion in 1982.
If in 1982 the UK had been keeping an equivalent military device in the Falklands as the current most likely not even the Argentina in 1982 could have invaded the same. However at that time the United Kingdom had been keeping other priorities in mind to consider as: a war with the Warsaw Pact and the own Soviet Union.
After all the UK until 1982 had maintained a good relationship with Argentina, just to demonstrate this could be mentioned: the two modern destroyers from Type 42 that the UK had sold Argentina just a few years before the war in 1982.
In second place there are others complications about the Falklands, since by what I read in the Constitution of the Argentina there is an article that claims that should be an obligation from Argentina people to take back the Falklands, luckily does not mention that this should be done by military means, but also does not prevent this.
Unfortunately every new weapon system that Argentina could have been considering to purchase would be eventually analyzed in a hypothetical new war by the Falklands, although should be remote that possibility would not be impossible.
In fact to make it really impossible the better way should be remove from Argentina any weapons system that could allow the means for a hypothetical new war by the Falklands.
About this question: “How would you re-build Argentinian military aviation “?
I would say: The Argentina should seek new sources that has not been aligned with the US and the UK, that at least would be a start.
maurobaggioWould you like to (1) take that bloody great chip off your shoulder, (2) stop misinterpreting my posts & attributing opinions to me which I do not hold, & (3) get back to the topic?
I will be completely honest with you:I really do not know from who you are complaining.
It might could be better in the future that you make this more clear, since you had posted it nobody else put anything more here in this thread.
I’d like to have a reasonable discussion about what Argentina could do to improve its national security, not yet another ‘How can Argentina invade the Falklands?’ thread. There are too many of them. The Falklands or Malvinas (good French name, that – Les Malouines, for St. Malo, in Brittany) are of very small importance to Argentina in every way except their misuse by Argentinean politicians to distract attention from their own incompetence & corruption, & we shouldn’t help those politicians.
At the present time in reason of the state of disrepair from Argentina Armed Forces maybe should be more appropriate replace such old thread for something like this: How can Argentina to avoid an invasion from Falklands?
Now if you believe that the Falklands has been such trifling matter in this thread this is your right.
However in my opinion the Falklands issue should be relevant in this thread in reason of the some restrains that Argentina could have been dealing to acquire even second hand fighters, by the away if it are already out-dated too.
After all could be possible that Falklands issue had created some ‘unusual facts’ even for the Chile Air Force after the acquisition of news F 16C / D in the early 2000s.
If anyone could be wondering itself: What hell has to do with Chile the Falklands?
Do not worry about this weird thought , once many Chileans could have done this in the past before you.
maurobaggioEasy tiger, the orginal J10B did not have an AESA in it, so I was assuming it was retrofitted, but you carry on being pedantic and telling me what YOU want to see in this thread…..
Indeed this behavior has been getting more and more common here in this Forum, and I can assure it will become much worse in the near future.
Still if someone has been trying to tell you what you can talk or not, the good news are that this Forum its really democratic, of course as in all democracies there are rules to avoid anarchy, because if they does not exist as the moderators this Forum would turn in hell.
In my opinion the information are always a good thing, even if it could be out of the thread it would not be remarkable problem, which in fact was not the case from J 10 with AESA radar.
By the away what has been made me curious about this issue is if China has been planned to upgrade both the J 8 II and Su 27SK/ UBK with AESA radars just like as J 10C/D
After all both fighters J 8II and Su 27 has been already in service for some time and an upgrading program could have been prepared for those fighters in China.
At least an AESA radar from China for the Su 27SK / UBK could be placed in the international market for Su 27/30 which indeed would be something to consider.
maurobaggioIf we can’t talk about economics and engineering and stay on technical, maybe we can talk about the Chinese “Anti-sealth” radar?
“According to a Nov. 10 China-based article in the Global Times, a Shandong Province-based JY-26 recently monitored an F-22 flying to South Korea. Separated by the Yellow Sea, Shandong’s coastline is 400 kilometers from Kunsan Air Base and Osan Air Base, South Korea.”
It is very interesting this news.
However I guess that if China really had wanted to demonstrate the capabilities of its new radar JY 26 nothing better to start testing this with their prototype fighters from 5th generation as: J 20 and J 31.
After all these are also stealth too, and the best part would be that China could control the test, and therefore there would be no doubt if those J 20 or J 31 had or not radar reflectors installed during the trials.
Perhaps China has not done it yet because nobody had this idea so far?
maurobaggioA very sensible post.
The USA sold more A-4s to Argentina, allowed US firms to assist in upgrading them, & sold new radars & other equipment for them. Letting Argentina buy second hand F-5Es & put them through an upgrade to keep them functional would be more of the same. They’d not be a serious threat to the Falklands, but would, as said, help Argentina to police its borders & airspace, which is to everyone’s benefit except criminals. I doubt even the UK would seriously object to it.
But before them, Argentina needs to spend money to restore its A-4ARs to full operational status, improve radar coverage, & put more patrol ships & MPAs (coastguard level – spending the extra needed for war fighting capacity can wait) into service.
As an interim solution the idea of F 5E/F could be good, but then what will come after these?
After all to keep something out-dated like the F 5E / F and A 4AR to patrol the borders could be quite costly for this only purpose even without BRV missiles capability, by the way it will not be necessary something like the F 5E/F or A 4AR to do that mission.
But eventually those fighters as F 5E/F should have been replaced in near future if I understand your reasoning correctly by others out-dated fighters, once that fighters with advanced combat capabilities can not be acquired because it would means as a threat for Falklands in future too?
If Argentina could not threaten the Falklands then maybe the best alternative would disarm Argentina at once, by the way it apparently has been done by the Argentina Governments for the last two decades.
If I understand your reasoning correctly then the Argentina should accept these: Typhoon fighters, Advanced Destroyers and SSN (Nuclear Attack Submarine) very close its territory, by the way according with the Argentina Government inside its territory, however Argentina can not have anything that could mean as threat for the Falklands?
It is very luck for Argentina the UK has been protecting the Falklands with those advanced weapons, and maybe the Argentina too, because if some others nation could be threaten Argentina, the UK could protect this too.
maurobaggiomaurobaggio:
You misunderstand what happened with NATO & Afghanistan in 2001.
The NATO rule is, & always has been, that NATO exists to defend the territories, shipping & aircraft of its members in the NATO area. If an attack takes place within that area, NATO is bound to at least discuss action. The response to an attack is not limited to the NATO area. It may take place anywhere. If an attack originates outside the NATO area, it’s obviously reasonable to retaliate against its source.
Where did the 11th September 2001 attacks take place? Were they within the NATO area? Where were they planned?
Now think about the Falklands. Are they within the NATO area?
The answers to those questions will tell you that nothing changed in 2001. It’s exactly the same now as before 2001, & as in 1982.
It is very interesting your observation from NATO, but the world today are not the same as in 1982, since in 1982 the Soviet Union as well the Warsaw Pact had been capable to invade the Western Europe.
Because of this NATO members’ position in Europe had been driven to contain such possible invasion from Warsaw Pact.
When Argentina invaded the Falklands in 1982 there were a great debates between NATO members, since due obligations with the NATO the UK could not send most of its fleet to the South Atlantic.
The solution had been found out by the US would be transfer units from its Pacific Fleet to the Atlantic provisionally as a way to offset the UK fleet that would be sent to the South Atlantic.
In fact the NATO as today the member has not been required to participate in a hypothetical conflict in the Falklands once this place has been located in the South Atlantic , however these NATO member has not been prohibited from doing it if they choose to do.
The point should be that in 1982 the United Kingdom had not invoked the famous Article 4 from NATO treaty, although in reason of the Falklands are located in the South Atlantic those NATO members has not obligated to join in such conflict. However the UK had received a large military aid from US in several ways and this could be considered as NATO agreement.
But today the Europe has been highly integrated economically and politically than in 1982, and without the main threat from the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact over the NATO members.
So the United Kingdom would be alone as in 1982, indeed it wasn’t really alone, to take over the Falklands after a hypothetical strike from Argentina against the Falklands?
In 1991 the Iraq were massacred by a Coalition with more than 30 countries lead by the US , indeed the Argentina was part of this Coalition, because the Iraq did not considered the small detail in their plans from invasion of the Kuwait after the Warsaw Pact had disappeared in 1989.
The small detail that Iraq forgotten in 1990 could be measured as 2.300 well equipped and trained military aircraft’s and fighters from the Coalition that had free time to stay in the Persian Gulf for as long as necessary, after all there was no longer the Warsaw Pact to ground those in Europe.
Besides there are a small detail in common between Kuwait and the Falklands after the end of the the Warsaw Pact in 1989 and the Soviet Union in 1991 , once both has oil reserves .
Because of all I do not think those countries from NATO or aligned with this has a great interest in that Argentina could be strengthened its military capabilities, especially fighters that could be used in a hypothetical conflict in the Falklands.
maurobaggioI actually don’t see why the U.S. won’t allow Saudi Arabia to sell their F-5 Tiger II to Argentina. If it was F-15, maybe, but F-5 is, uh, obsolete. The F-5 Tiger II will allow Argentina to maintain their current strength and despite what I said about BVR weapons, the U.S. can simply ensure Argentina can’t get any modern BVR missiles that the F-5 Tiger II can use. Limit it to Sidewinders, and the Argentina will have an air force capable of policing its airspace but not be a threat to the Falkland Islands.
Using Russian or Chinese hardware will sidestep that particular issue, but really our speculation here purposely avoid the boring and yet the all important issue.
The main obstacle for Argentina’s Air Force modernization is not any outside actor. It’s Argentina itself. It is not even their current economic trouble. There was a period last decade where Argentina was booming, and yet their defense was not improved at all. No, the problem is their own policy of making sure the military stays weak because they distrust their own military. Argentina’s government might feel the distrust is justified given its past, but as long as the Argentinian government distrusts their own military, no significant improvement will happen. This is regardless of what Russia and China have to offer.
The idea of the F 5E / F could be good for Argentina, but the only viable source from F 5E / F to Argentina would be if its fighters would came from Iran.
For Saudi Arabia could sell the F 5E/F to Argentina would have to overcome some huge obstacles as:
However the main problem of Argentina would not only with the UK about the issue from Falklands , since the end of the Cold War the NATO has been changed its guidelines, just remember the military operation from NATO in Afghanistan after 2001 .
Today if Argentina hypothetically had tried to retake the Falklands as it did in 1982 the Argentina would not have to fight with the UK, but with all NATO members.
In 1982 in reason of the threat from Soviet Union ,the NATO had been limited to defend the Europe as the North Atlantic, and because of this it were not required from its members to participate in the Falklands War because this war would be in the South Atlantic, but today the rules has been changed since the end of the Cold War.
While the Argentina would not recognized the sovereignty from UK over the Falklands, and still has been keeping to obtain even second hand fighters from nations has been aligned with NATO members, the fate from Argentina Air Force will be the same from New Zealand, however this last one has made this option in public.
maurobaggioA bad day at Janes.
All these reports go back to the ‘exclusive’ newspaper report in the Mail or Express. I forget which, & it doesn’t matter: they’re both rubbish. Neither would check the story, or question the logic of the deal, because they’re rubbish, & because it fits their prejudices. If I wanted to invent a story like this & get it published, they’re the papers I’d go to.
I’m surprised that Janes didn’t do more checking, though. They’re getting sloppy.
Someone with your high intelligence and knowledge would do something much more impressive in my humble opinion.
I just can imagine, however I think you would not started this story for the newspaper with the second hand Su 24M2 Fencer in first place, in my opinion I think you would move on for the Su 34 Fullback.
If the goal should to make an impact, so imagine what could accomplished with the Su 34 Fullback instead of Su 24M2 Fencer.
Besides you could easily increased in the story the proposed Su 32 FN, which should be maritime version of the Su 34 for the AV-MF or external market, in which case the Su 32 FN were proposed with the capability to perform AsuW/ASW(anti ship and anti submarine missions), as well as strike missions and air defense missions from Su 34.
The Typhoon fighters hasn’t been the only great threat in the Falklands to Argentina, once another threat should be represented by SSN (Nuclear attack Submarine) that at least one of these has been always keeping on patrol missions along the Falklands. So the Su 34/32FN could supplement or even replace the P3C Orion from Argentina in this missions ASuW/ASW.
To dramatize a little more the newspaper readers you could mentioned those anti ship missiles as Yakount and Kh 41 Moskit that could be an options to the Su 34/32, since it these missiles has not matched with the Su 24, and these missiles could be a great threat in reason the heavy warhead even for the news Air Carriers class as HMS Queen Elisabeth.
For skeptics like me that could say that Argentina would not have the financial means to purchase the Su 34 Fullback from Russia , you could remember that a few moths ago such letter of intention with issue to purchase the 24 JAS 39 Gripen E / F that the Minister of Defense of Argentina had signed without even started a competition. After all if the Argentina has been capable to acquire 24 JAS 39 Gripen E / F also would be no problem to purchase perhaps 12-16 Su 34 Fullback from Russia that you could mentioned for someone like me.
It was a great luck day for Janes in my humble opinion that it was not you that had invented this story for the newspaper. Because you would make the Janes has to write a book to detail all aspects and impacts of Su 34 in Argentina, and after this it will be discredited for has been quoted a source from A DAILY MAIL ARTICLE that indeed happened with the Su 24M Fencer story.
Source from Su 34 Fullback:http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Fullback.html
maurobaggio+1
That was amazing. Thanks!
+1
Dear Tango III,
Congratulations for your dedication and admirably commitment to keep us well informed and bring different sources from information, as well as all others who had been posted here and contributed with this thread.
maurobaggioI am not sure what your point is because this response of yours is completely irrelevant to what we have been discussing.. :confused:
Sorry about to interrupt the discussion, however I think that you had been mentioning the cost of development & procurement of the the Rafale F3 and F 35A. So I had contributed with information about the Rafale F3 from India and the Gripen E for Brazil.
If you do not remember here is:
Anyway, few comments:
1) The figure for Rafale is not limited to development & procurement. It also includes F3 standard, uprated M88 engines, Damocl�s pod, AESA version of RBE2 and Reco NG pod, as well as development cost over a period of 40 years, including inflation.
2) Program cost for US F-35s is said to be $390 billion for development (and procurement?), without future upgrades. Counting future upgrades and inflation, I think it could end up somewhere short of half trillion.
Maybe it was not relevant that I have mentioned the program cost of the Rafale F3 and Gripen E ,but in that time this would appears to me as relevant, and so I couldn’t see nothing bad to add some information for such deeply discussion.
But I promise that in the future this will not happen again.
Anyway, few comments here:
1) I have never seen a figure of $30 billion for Rafale deal. The typical figure floating around is $20 billion which is already significantly more than initially expected.
Do not worry about it, after all we are humans and because this we haven’t been capable to know all, then I suggest that you use some of your time to read the article in the link below about the speculation that the cost of the Rafale F3 could be reach US$ 30 Billions :
http://www.newindianexpress.com/columns/Why-Rafale-is-a-Big-Mistake/2014/07/25/article2346825.ece
2) The FAB deal is more about entire ToT including reexport rights, virtually an entry ticket for Brazil to enter the Gen 4++ market with a design which will most likely continue to sell in decent numbers, maybe even in Latin America once the current fleet of FAP Fulcrums/Mirages or Colombian Mirages/Kfirs start to retire. The only reason fir the $150mil “unit cost” would be the low number of airframes connected to the initial contract (36).. Nevertheless, I expect FAB to get at least 80-100 Gripen E/Fs, with final unit price not exceeding $90 million (FY2014).
I admit that your arguments are good, but it does not explain why the Gripen E for Switzerland has the same cost of US$ 150 million that for Brazil with all those advantages.
In fact I think that has been a optimistic estimate that the Gripen E could be reduced the cost from US$ 150 million to US$ 90 million with only 100 units built for Brazil.
In this case the F 35A/B/C with 3200 units that could be built also will has its cost reduced by an ratio even larger than the own Gripen E for Brazil.
If this decreasing cost ratio could be happen with the Gripen E then in a decade the cost of the F 35A will be less than the Gripen E?!
After all what is true for one should be true for the other.
maurobaggioAs already said to BIO, I am not interested in getting much deeper in this argument because the whole line or reasoning was meant purely sarcastically, without paying much attention to accuracy of the figures provided.
Anyway, few comments:
1) The figure for Rafale is not limited to development & procurement. It also includes F3 standard, uprated M88 engines, Damoclès pod, AESA version of RBE2 and Reco NG pod, as well as development cost over a period of 40 years, including inflation.
2) Program cost for US F-35s is said to be $390 billion for development (and procurement?), without future upgrades. Counting future upgrades and inflation, I think it could end up somewhere short of half trillion.http://nationalinterest.org/feature/americas-f-35-coming-crash-landing-11332
| width: 500 | class: grid | align: center |
|---|---|---|
| [tr] | ||
| [td][/td] | ||
| [td]Type[/td] | ||
| [td]Number of Aircrafts[/td] | ||
| [td]Amount of Contract (Billions)[/td] | ||
| [td]Unit Cost (millions)[/td] | ||
| [/tr] | ||
| [tr] | ||
| [td]India[/td] | ||
| [td]Rafale F3[/td] | ||
| [td]126[/td] | ||
| [td]US$ 22.0 [/td] | ||
| [td]US$ 175[/td] | ||
| [/tr] | ||
| [tr] | ||
| [td]Australia[/td] | ||
| [td]F 35A[/td] | ||
| [td]100[/td] | ||
| [td]US$ 23.076 [/td] | ||
| [td]US$ 231[/td] | ||
| [/tr] |
Source:
http://www.newindianexpress.com/columns/Why-Rafale-is-a-Big-Mistake/2014/07/25/article2346825.ece
http://www.ausairpower.net/notices.html#TOP
Indeed could be possible that the cost of Rafale F3 would be less than the F 35A, however the contract with India has not signed , and according to the report in the link the cost of 126 Rafale F3 to India could reach US$ 30 billion, which would result in a unit cost of US$ 238 million, which would match to F 35A from Australia.
The main fact should be that there are not on the market such advanced fighter from 4° + Generation with low cost of the acquisition and operation , and the proof could be the Gripen E:
Comparative Table Brazil / Switzerland
width: 500 class: grid align: center [tr] [td][/td] [td]Type[/td] [td]Number of Gripen NG[/td] [td]Amount of Contract (Billions)[/td] [td]Unit Cost (millions)[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Brazil[/td] [td]Gripen E/F[/td] [td]36[/td] [td]Us$ 5.4[/td] [td]US$ 150[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Switzerland[/td] [td]Gripen E[/td] [td]22[/td] [td]US$ 3.297[/td] [td]US$ 150[/td] [/tr] By the same unit cost from Switzerland the Brazil would have enclosed in its contract:
- 100% ToT
- Reexport rights from Gripen E/F
- a new production line that will be installed in Brazil
- development of the new Gripen F in Brazil
- financial resources to keep the production line in Brazil with rate of the 3 aircraft’s per year for five years
In both cases could be a reason that in India there are such speculations about the cost of the Rafale F3, once so far the unit cost would be US$ 175 million from Rafale F3, while for Brazil and Switzerland the unit cost from Gripen E would be US$ 150 million.
In each fighter from 4° and 5° Generation could be possible to find out its strengths and weaknesses about its performance, however about the the cost all are extremely expensive since many of its subsystems will be equivalent in complexity and cost.
maurobaggioMultiple strike waves – with 12 aircraft.
Rough fields – but where are these rough fields? Ever been to the area? I have.
What the hell is the point of dispersing a dozen aircraft to stretches of road or the like, when there are already a few airfields within range?This whole discussion is silly. Very silly indeed. Russia swapping aircraft for wheat? In other news, Brazil exports aircraft in exchange for coffee. :highly_amused: Russia has had an excellent harvest, & is exporting record amounts of wheat right now. The days of needing to import grain are long over.
I did not think that issue of the Su 24 for Argentina it was serious too, however now after to see this link I guess the issue is not just speculation:
http://www.janes.com/article/47293/uk-reviews-falklands-defence-as-russia-offers-su-24s-to-argentina
I do not guess that even 24 Su 24M could be a great threat to the United Kingdom in the Falklands, however I also guess the Su 24 would not be the only , since it would make no sense to acquire attack aircraft without such capable fighter for this escort mission of the Su 24 and the own air defense mission from Argentina to replace the older Mirage IIIEA.
Indeed there are much speculation about this issue, however something is certain that Russia has not been happy with the crisis in Ukraine, and especially with the idea that Ukraine join with NATO.
The invasion of the Falklands in 1982 by Argentina had been motivated by high possibility of the oil reserves in the Falklands and also for the financial crisis in Argentina, so for the Russia today to complicate NATO’s life by increasing the military capabilities from Argentina would not be a waste of resources, after all the possibility for a new conflict in the Falklands certainly could affect the will from investors to put their money in oil exploration in the Falklands, and with the decline in the production of the oil and gas in the North Atlantic, its possible that Europe would become more dependent of the energy sources from foreign countries as Russia.
In this case to Russia the energy dependence from Europe would be even greater in the future than today, then Europe would import this energy from some sources, and and among them would be from Russia.
maurobaggioF-15SMTD was a dead-end for a reason: the thrust reversers were incredibly heavy. The Swedes’ 800-meter, narrow runway is a pretty good compromise as long as you also have an aircraft that is designed for effective dispersal (not an insanely complex Chitty Chitty Bang Bang with three different major power systems).
Each system as the STOLV and STOL has been keeping its advantages and disadvantages.
It would be important to keep in mind that even the STOL JAS 39 Gripen has been depended for a runway from 800m ( 2,650 ft) that could give the necessary means to reach a speed of 240 Km/h( 149 mph) for take off, as well as a runway that allows the JAS 39 to touch the runway at 235 km/h( 146 mph) for landing.
To find out this high quality extension from 800 m( 2,650 ft) in Sweden roads that has been suited for its task would not be a problem, since it were built for this purpose in case of war, and this were used for the fighters STOL AJ/SK/ JA 37 Viggen before the JAS 39 Gripen.
In other countries the Sweden system from dispersed fields could found out harsh problem to be implemented, once due at the lack of this structure from roads, or then its structure should be built for this purpose, so this also would be an additional cost for it fully implementation.
However today should be considered others factor to measure the effectiveness from dispersed and alternative bases for STOL fighter, since that sky has been increasingly filled with reconnaissance satellites as the UAV, and it will be very common the stealth UAVs in the near future, which would complicate the task to disperse the fighters in those alternative bases, once this fighters could be already detects the by those reconnaissance means before the enemy attack.
So this high capabilities in real time reconnaissance could decrease or even nullify the effectiveness of the these alternative bases, and also could expose more those fighters in ground for the destruction by the enemy air strikes, in case those alternatives bases has not been equipped with armored shelters as HAS.
Even the best hardened HAS could be vulnerable for air strikes as it had demonstrated in Iraq in 1991, but aircraft’s under the open sky are even more vulnerable as were highly evident since the Six Day War in 1967.
Sign In
