On the other hand, if I remember correctly much of the proposed offsets for the SU-35 were centered on a civil space launch programm for Brazil. Looking on the current market and the much bigger number availability of space launch vehicles in comparison to non millitary demand, then I´m not sure if it is such a good deal.
(But I could be wrong on the off seat deal)
My bet is on the SU. Best plane, good deal.
And Embraer is already seeing compensation in form of the F-5 amd AMX updates.
(Although a small voice in my heads keeps on saying “interim solution will be the choice”)
No big news imho. They needed a service and overhaul facillity for their russian eqipment, otherwise they would have to get rid of it in the near future.
Now they can make full use of their russian made equipment. Which is very good for them.
But the terrace on FRA is bad anyway. Very bad for photography at least, as it facing south.
Can you go more in detail my European buddy.
Ok you know that Mexico did purchase Mi-8T and Mi-17 and AN-32 from Russia and the Ukraine a few years ago. Unfortunately the local support for that types was seen as less then satifying. Mexico could use no local overhaul/servicing facility for those types and spare support was also unreliable. So the serviceability of the types is not as good as the MExicans would wish.
So they are now looking at Israel, Western Europe and the US as theri new main suppliers of millitary hardware. Especially Israel seems to be back. The Mexican Avara STOL transports seem to enjy a mauch better support from the supplier.
Funnily enough the most accurate ground pounder during the time fram from 1984 to 1992 had no radar at all. -> the F-117.
What I know Radar is often used for low level toss bombing maneuvers, as the radar calcualtes the time to pull up and the time to release the bombs. If this way of delivering ordonance is still valid todays seems rather questionable imho.
So the ground mapping mode is more usefull for accurate navigation and surveillance then anything else.
There is no such thing as radar guided air to ground mode, except for antiships. A2G radar modes are primarily used for navigation, search, scan, surveillance, and tracking of ground targets, target affirmation, prior to an attack using GPS, TV or laser guided weapons. Many planes who can do bomb attacks also have air to ground modes to support surveillance, even though they do not have PGM capability. The F-16A and the APG-66 is a good example.
You can attack a target that has been subject to prior reconnaissance study, but that requires two missions to do the job of one. Not to mention it loses the element of surprise, or the opportunity to strike the enemy when a plane is there, instead of having to call a seperate strike mission. Why not just survey the land for targets yourself, locate the targets, then attack. Close support and ground attack missions often require a lot of autonomous reaction based on opportunity, in addition to preplanned strikes.
There are uses of A2G radar modes with TV and laser PGMs. For example, the radar can que the TV seeker to a suspicious object in the ground map. The TV seeker can display the image to the WSO for target identification. You can also use the radar to cue or aim a laser target designator towards an identified target in the ground map. Radar can see through bad weather where optics can fail. If you want to bomb blind through bad weather, you have to learn to rely completely on your radar and instruments. Night bombing is another, even just low level night flying.
Oh and let us not forget terrain avoidance. This is especially important for low flying strike aircraft.
I just wanted to point out, that you don´t need a ground mode capable radar to do bombing or ground attack missions. The radar is a very helpfull tool to fix the position of the aircraft in comparison to the target. It is also usefull to cue other seekers on to the target. And it is usefull if you want to do night bombing missions, which can be fairly accurate if done from level level. But I think it is has been loosing importance. With the arrival of laser and GPS guided weapons the old radar bombing has become obsolete. It was far more important during the 80ies for the F-111 and Tornado community (and SU -24 on the other side) who would depend a lot on the radar to deliver their payload with pinpoint accuracy.
Today it has lost much of its importance for attacks against fixed target. With GPS you only need the exact coordinates and that is it. Those can be programmed precisely at your home base.
It has become however increasingly important for moving targets and targets of oportunity. If you can pinpoint such a target well enough to get a GPS fix and can also reprogramm your munitions with the new target coordinates, then the ground modes matter. But then you also need the weapons that give you the flexibility. Weapons that can be reprogrammed in flight and can be updated in flight to hit a moving target.
You would also like to use different sensors and net centric warfare. Or even sent an UACV to attack coordinates taken from your high resolution grund mapping – moving target indicator capable radar.
For the weapons available to the SU it mostly does not matter.
In fact ground mapping is often not used for targeting. It is often used for navigation purposes as it helps to update the INS before GPS became popular.
It is only used to update the coordinates for a-g weapons. But I never heard that some one would lock his radar onto a ground target before starting a bombing run.
The same is with guided missilies, they are fired to reach a certain set of coordinates before they engage their own terminal seeker and attack. That does not need a ground targeting radar capability.
The most sensefull use of ground mapping is to get a even better GPS location for attacking targets with JDAMs or other GPS/INS guided weapons.
Well afaik they were considering a very small numer of airframes as attrition replacements. (less then 6)
Well with the reports that the Mexicans are not happy with some of the russian equipment they bought and their indication that they are seriously looking at western equipment again for their next purchases (martime helicopters from eurocopter, AN transports to be replaced with CASAs or C-27s) I think it is unlikely that they would jump to buy chinese any time in the near future.
New fighters are also not high on their agenda, the transport fleet and some of the helicopters are in a much more urgent need of replacement. And then there is an interest in more ERJ-145s for SIGNIT.
Fighter wise they might try to buy some well maintained F-5s in the near future (swiis examples).
In long run I think they would probably decide on Grippen in future. (Mako could be an option too, if it ever enters production)
1,24 Euros for 1 liter of unleaded
0,96 Euros for 1 liter diesel
Aviation does als include civil and commercial aviation as well as all types of helicopters and in those areas Western Europe is surely ahead of Russia by a big margain.
If we would say military aviation, then I would have to agree with you.
When looking at aviation in general I would say that western europe is ahead of the russian by a good margin.
In the early to mid 80ies the miG-29 would be few in numbers. The main fighter would be the MiG-23. In the late 80ies the MiG-29 would be available, but we would also have more advanced western types available. F-18, F-16 and Tornados have replaced the F-104 by then.
Mirage 2000 is ready. Tornado F.3 is ready. F-15C is ready. AIM-7M is ready.
I think the best time for an attack would have been in the mid 80ies. The MiG-29 would have been a real winner. The MiG-23 was second to none in BVR combat. Add MiG-25 and SU-25s and the BVR fight would have been very one sided.
That will mean more boring A320 for spotting at DUS and I will miss my beautifull 753s.