nocutstoRAFIts a bit of levity isnt it?!. Besides it is an interesting tactical challenge…the intent here is to actually go force-on-force…not harrass-to-drive-off as most think is the winning strategy for Argentina.
[EDITED]
If Argentina wants to take the Islands therefore its all got to happen by air. First order of business is simple…remove RAF Mount Pleasant.
Assets Required (Assault/Stabilisation)
++++++++++++
– 60+ DF-15B/16
– 42 JAS-39C (18 Islands deployed)
– 24 KC-390 (3 deployed tanker config)
– 21 Eitan UAV (15 deployed)
– 12 Be200PS (6/2 deployed MP/trans config)– 4 btr VL MICA GBADS
– 3 btr 35mm MANTIS
– 3 btr 155mm CEASAR– 4 bttns ‘good’ air assault troops.
[EDITED]
Thanks for the comprehensive reply – couple of points I thought worth discussing. Presumably Argentina’s neighbours have reasonable intelligence on Argentina, even if they choose not to share it, presumably the purchase of DF-16 is going to create alarm bells and upset the local geopolitical picture? Everything else in your package looks like it wouldn’t cause to much concern, but presumably a ballistic missile with a range of up to 1,000 km would be of concern to many of its neighbours, especially Chile and Uruguay who capital cities are well with-in range of the DF-16?
Also, given that Argentina has been without to much fanfare buying trainers and helicopter’s along with the F-1M purchase, should Argentina see if it can purchase South African JAS-39 and A190’s, and if so how much impact do you think it would make on your timetable?
nocutstoRAFThere are very very few days on the FI that a mass para drop would be a good idea. The terrain is bad, the weather conditions worse and there are few areas large enough to drop into that are out of LOS of a settlement/military facility.
If you’re are spotted then you’ll have FIDF and the BA coming out on WMIKS to mow you down on the LZ.
Plus I’m fairly certain a Tiffy would eat most Mig-29 variants.
Presumably the best place to drop would be MPA itself (in order to avoid difficult terrain), but you would need to have already neutralised the rapier batteries and taken the alert fighter out of the equation – in terms of a strike package I wonder what this would require. I imagine you are looking at at least 8 Mig-29 and same number of SEM’s in your first strike package, then more Mig’s to cover the C-130’s and likely need SEM’s loitering to provide CAP.
My interest stems from the fact that as most people accept that Argentina is very unlikely to possess the resources for full scale amphibious assault, there are basically only three ideas the get floated around on the internet on how to capture the Falklands – two of which are based on deception (either passenger jet full of commando’s or cruise liner full of commando’s) or para drop – the first two are always shown to make no sense, and most people drop the idea of para drop once it clear that 50 para’s with MANPADs isn’t going to ground MPA and allow a follow up wave of regular forces to seize the island. I always wondered if you could scale up the para drop to go with large scale attack.
nocutstoRAFI normally keep out of these threads, but presuming serious investment could Argentina take the islands with paratroopers? Say for example if Argentina purchased 20 odd second hand C-130’s from the US and at the same time made modest purchases of enablers like a couple of aircraft capable of AAR plus maybe a squadron MIG-29’s with fairly austere avionics and as many SEM’s as France will sell them, the have a force that is reasonable for the region without causing the UK any real concerns. It seems to me that depending on the availability of their total of 28 C-130 (8 already in service + 20 second hand, presume 80% availability and 60 paratroops per plane gives a force of around 1,320 without any heavy equipment or supplies), they could suppress the airfield’s defences using the Mig-29’s to support the SEM conducting the strike mission and drop in a reasonably large force to try to capture MPA by paratroops. Is this sufficient forces to have say a 60% chance of capturing MPA?
My only concern is that unless they buy very large numbers of transports to bring in a significant number of paratroopers the margins are not great enough to force surrender of the garrison without a fight, and likely they would need to continue strike operations in support of their troops to be able to win, and in those circumstances the casualties on both sides would be high – it is one thing to take the island by force with minimal casualties and it is another to have tens or even hundreds of British soldiers killed by the invasion – in those circumstances I can see that the only South American country who would continue to support them would be Venezuela and an invasion with a high body count would push the UK into a situation where it had to go war over the islands sovereignty.
nocutstoRAFThe split tail of the Yak-141 kind of reminds me of the P.1216, though obviously the gap between the tail is much greater on the P.1216, and the rest of the design is very dissimilar – presumably both designs were working on the logic that a split tail prevented engine damage to the tail, and allowed for the rear engine to pivot to the deck for launch? Such a shame that the P.1216 wasn’t developed into an in service aircraft.
PS I recommend BAe P.1216: Supersonic ASTOVL Aircraft (ProjectTech Profiles) by Michael Pryce. Excellent book, with some nice little snippets of info on more than just this one project.
nocutstoRAFThis isn’t meant to insult their intelligence, but I wonder if they even know what they are looking for, and why the guy in the foreground is holding the pickle above his head.
If I was a gambling man I would bet that they do know what they are looking for (as much as the Russian’s do anyway) as the chap with spectacles standing at the far left does not look of Chinese ethnic origin to me – therefore I suspect that they have brought in outside expertise to help develop their deck handling skills.
nocutstoRAFspeaking of fighter replacement, it appears they are in talks with Spain for 12 secondhand Mirage F-1M’s
It’s good news if it happens (the purchase of second hand F-1M’s) they have been comprehensively upgraded and well maintained.
Is the article mentions buying some F-1M’s as a source of spares – would this come out of the 12 F-1M’s in the initial order, or would they be a second tranche of F-1M’s?
Would F-1M’s in Argentine service use the R.530 or are all the R.530’s that Argentina owns time expired?
nocutstoRAFMIG-29K choice over SU-33 because its light weight despite having 5 wet stations and longer airframe life. If Su-33 has to gain similar capability its weight will raise further and performance will degrade.
MIG-29M has superior TWR to Su-30. so it makes a better fighter for airdefence. Su-30/F-15E are good strike fighter but not so efficient in airdefence like EF or MIG-29M. There is also further improvement in RD-33MK engine.
It might be that I not especially knowledgable about Russian aircraft (though I do have some good books on the subject), but I am still not sure I am getting why we are discussing Mig-29M versus the SU-33. Can you confirm that when you are comparing the Mig-29M you are comparing it to say the Su-30MKM (which presumably is close to the standard that Iraq would order)?
nocutstoRAFSu-30MKI is different than Su-33. which is built at separate factory. and that fighter is not multirole and have lower TWR than MIG-29K. MIG-29K superior TWR makes it better fighter for small carriers.
MIG-29M is lighter version of MIG-29K. Its way ahead interm of AESA certification (which itself increases reliability and lower maintaince). Engine and airframe life is comparable to Su-35. It can also be upgraded with 3D TVC. i mean 5 heavy weight points. this capability is similar to Su-30. MIG-29M also share engine with Chinese FC-1. so much more fighters wit same engine can be inducted in much larger number quickly.
Sorry I am still confused, why would Iraq consider the Su-33, it doesn’t need a carrier based fighter? I admit that this thread has drifted a lot, but I thought the point you were making was the Mig-29M is better choice than SU-30MK, and personally, if I was in charge of the Iraqi Air Force I would prefer something similar to SU-30MKA or SU-30MKM than the Mig-29M, but then I have an aesthetic preference for the SU-30!
nocutstoRAFWhy do u think MIG-29K exist when its production line practically went offline compared to Flanker in late 1990s. MIG-29M is further light weight with superior TWR than Su-30. which is more like trainer/bomb truck. Su-30 top speed/altitude is all reduced compared to baseline Flanker.
MIG-29M has 5 weight points. similar capability to Su-30 in most situation. Above all AESA upgrade is practically certified for MIG-29 upgrades.
Sorry to jump in here, I am a bit puzzled, isn’t the Su-30MKI production line still open, and isn’t there still another 100 odd aircraft left to be delivered to India, meaning that there is plenty of scope for ordering Su-30 for Iraq as it’s very much an active production line? Plus as of date there appears to be far more Su-30MKI alone in service than Mig-29M’s, so surely from the point of view of lower upgrade costs it would be better to buy a modern Su-30 variant without Israeli systems than the Mig-29M which has only been built in small numbers as then there will be a bigger user base to support the cost of future upgrades? Plus according to Wikipedia (less than 100% accurate I know) India is replacing the Su-30MKI’s PESA radar with an AESA radar, so presumably Iraq could procure a Su-30 based fighter with AESA radar without too much trouble?
While JSR may well be correct that the Mig-29M’s kinematic performance is better, I cannot see any good reasons why Iraq wouldn’t buy the SU-30, so what am I missing !?!
PS what is a weight point?
nocutstoRAFWouldnt it be better to use the F-20?
As Swerve mention’s, in relation to the OP original concept, then the answer is that the F-20 is an overkill.
However, I personally think that the OP’s concept is flawed, at least for RAF usage (which I assume is where Tempest414 is headed) – IMO for a Western air force the key cost of ownership is not the capital cost of the aircraft but operational costs, such as the personnel costs, and therefore I see as the key limit on the size of the RAF being the number of people it can employ not the number of jets it can buy. When the cost of the pilots and maintainers are low you can afford to have a high lo mix to maximise the number of aircraft you capital budget can purchase, but when the cost of the pilots and maintainers are high you are going to end up with only being able to afford to operate a fixed number of aircraft almost regardless of how much they cost to buy. Which I suspect is why aircraft like AMX have fallen out of favour in the West.
Picking up another of Swerve’s point, I had forgotten about the FA-50 (and the armed trainer TA-50), given that the FA-50 is designed to replace the F-5E and the squadron commander for 100 Squadron is on the record in this month’s AFM with a stated desire to re-equip 100 Squadron with TA-50’s as in his opinion Hawk T2 isn’t the right aircraft for aggressor training due to sub-sonic speed and a lack of a radar, maybe there is some merit to discussing if the FA-50 and the TA-50 would be of benefit to the RAF.
nocutstoRAFYou have just described the JF-17.
It comes in at around the $20 million mark.
Not a betting man, but I reckon that if the JF-17 was built in the West with Western avionics and systems and then certified for use by a Western air force it would cost considerably more than $20 million
nocutstoRAFWhile I have been thinking along the same lines as the OP recently, I do wonder if the gap in the market isn’t for a new lightweight tactical fighter i.e. a new build fighter derived from a modernised F-5E not for a sub-sonic mud mover, as there appears to be a need for cheap supersonic aircraft capable of air policing, with maybe 7 pylons (centreline for drop tank, recce pod or targeting pod, two under each wing, the inner rated for ~500lb, the outer rated for around 350lb, and wingtip pylons for ASRAAM/AIM-9X) with at best secondary A2G capability of mounting a couple of 500lb class PGM’s.
I guess a modern F-5E would be built around something like the Honeywell F125 engine, and as Swerve suggests incorporate Selex Vixen 500E. The problem I suspect in keeping the cost down (when I think about this idea I keep adding base line capabilities that I am sure aren’t cheap or even needed – do we need FBW? While I can’t imagine a fighter without a RWR, does it need any sort of ESM? What sort of baseline avionics fit would be good enough for air policing?)
Is it possible to build a modern F-5E for the OP’s target budget of £20 million?
My gut is that it might be more like £35 million to build a new F-5E, and that wouldn’t include incorporate the development costs, which even with off the shelf components I am guessing the whole aircraft would need still need an expensive programme of static testing, flight tests and certification.
nocutstoRAFIf there was some sort of wider assortment of guided weapons for pampas, then i’d see the point. But this… they’re going to use freefall bombs and strafe targets with rockets? in 2020?
Firstly I am presuming that the reason why AT-63 doesn’t already have the ability to carry LGB’s is that Argentina doesn’t see the need, however, if they did decide to add the ability in the future, how difficult would it be to integrate an after market upgrade like the Elbit Lizard on to the AT-63? I suggested the Lizard as Brazil has experience of it.
In any future upgrade, would it be worthwhile fitting a terrain following radar and a forward looking IR/TV camera to the AT-63 to give a day/night ground attack capability, or would the weight penalty just be to great?
Finally, is the AT-63 cleared for Aim-9-M carriage, if so on what pylons, or is a case of it needing to add wingtip rails for Aim-9-M?
Sorry for all the questions, I understand the need to provide enough trainers to make sure any fast jet squadron that gets stood down has something to fly to avoid skill fade, but am just wondering, a bit like totoro, how the AT-64 will fit in once Argentine Government decide to release funds to replace the Mirages in the interceptor/air policing role.
nocutstoRAFYet with a cruise missile system how would a nation differentiate between a conventional cruise missile attack and a nuclear one?
Sorry if this has been mentioned before – but I always thought the answer to this issue and the one of vulnerability of Tomahawk (and the reason why the “let’s switch to nuclear cruise missile based deterrent argument is flawed”) is that the UK would have to design a bespoke super/hyper-sonic cruise missile which if detected everyone would know was a nuclear weapon. I imagine a bespoke nuclear cruise missile built in low numbers would be very expensive.
I seem to remember that there was an official MoD study which suggested that the cheapest deterrent (by small margin only) was three guided missile cruisers, once continuously as sea, carrying vertical launched ICBMs – is it worth considering as an option? (I’m thinking the answers is no, as you would need a large ship needing a full range of defensive weapons plus it would need to escorted, and the MoD is bound to want to use it more roles than a deterrent).
nocutstoRAFT1 and T2 are different, primarily in that T2 has new processors and a new avionics bay shelf. A T1>T2 upgrade has been demonstrated (on IPAs), and was cheap enough for EF GmbH to offer it free to Austria when it looked as though that nation would get a mix of T1 and T2 aircraft.
T1 jets will not get P1E, though they will gain most P1E features through drops 3, 4, and 5.
Hi Jackonicko,
You pretty much nailed on the head the question I was trying to grope towards asking – will the RAF bring the T1 up to the same standard as the T2 aircraft so that they can then in the future upgrade all Typhoons with AESA radar and integrate all the RAF’s inventory on the most number of Typhoons possible?
Sign In
