thobbesKC-46A enters service in 2017 with a total of 4 development + 18 operational aircraft. Remaining 157 are to be delivered between 2018 and 2028, which means probably about 15 aircraft being delivered per annum
If KC-10A is retired before 2017, that would leave a short fall of tankers.
Given assumed KC-46 delivery rates, it would only be 2020 that KC-46A numbers match retired KC-10 numbers.
And remember US does not have too many tankers. These aircraft support not just fighter deployments, but transports as well as USN and USMC aircraft where possible (especially KC-10 which are compatible with both systems) and overseas partners as well.
Basically retiring KC-10 leaves a tanker gap for USN and USMC who cannot use KC-135 probe and drogue method,
thobbesDoes India intend to replace entire An-32 fleet with C-130Js?
thobbes. So when all the A-10s and Su-25s retire, we’ll have to choose between sending down slow, expendable prop aircraft (Super Tucanos, drones etc), or expensive front-line fighters. Or nothing at all.
Or attack choppers which is most air force’s preference and which sell far better than even EMB314s.
NATO tactics have developed to allow CAS to be performed at high/medium altitude anyhow. There should not be a need for low CAS.
So the Scorpion at least in that respect may be a good middle-of-the-road solution.
I don’t disagree that Scorpion might be a good middle-of-the road solution.
Problem is it’s potential market is mainly impoverished countries who struggle to afford second hand Vietnam era airframes and let alone anything new.
And it’s come a bit late with EMB 314 pretty much taking over entire market.
thobbesGiven that we hve seen and still see T37, Bronco, Mohawk, Puccara being flown till the last remaining hours of their cells, I hve no doubt that there is a market for the plane. Payload wise, performances are on the top list. You can’t compare it with a turboprop.
T-37 is a trainer.
OV-1 Mohawk is only in service with Argentina.
IA-58 is in service with Argentina and possibly still in service with Uruguay in really small numbers (like 4 aircraft).
Argentina has IA-63B and won’t buy new US light jets.
All A-37s in service have generally been donated* and there’s not many left:
– Colombia – partially replaced by EMB-314.
– Ecuador – being replaced by EMB-314
– El Salvador
– Guatemala
– Honduras
– Peru – up to 18 including recent South Korean donations.
– Uruguay
Maybe 80 airframes in existence, not many operational
*Donations
Most A-37s were donated by the USA in 1980s and 1990s mainly as counter insurgency aircraft. Most of the forces listed above cannot afford new aircraft and most are in decline in terms of numbers of aircraft operated. They often can’t even afford new helicopters or light aircraft in most instances and any “new” aircraft are either second hand or mainly donated for counter narcotics.
OV-10:
Colombia
Phillipines – looking at EMB-314
Venezuela – apparently all unserviceable.
Indonesia – being replaced by EMB-314.
Maybe 40 airframes in existence, not many operational and at least half to be gone by 2015
– Again mostly donated airframes.
thobbesTextron have also chosen a wierd time to get into this market.
It made sense 10 years ago when the US was engaging in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But no now when the emphasis is shifting towards focusing on conventional threats in Asia Pacific.
thobbesEMB314 is also handy for training.
Also EMB314s PT6 engine is used by a whole heap of other aircraft often found in other aircraft used by smaller operators – Beech B90, B200, Air Tractors, T-34Cs, DHC-6s, PC-6s, PC-7s, BT-67s, Y-12s, Pipers and Cessnas (and even the old IAI Aravas if any are still operational).
This simplifies logistics and training.
Also many small operators don’t operate any jet aircraft, so a turbofan equipped aircraft brings moe complexity into the mix.
thobbesThe military market puts a lot more value on performance, and a lot less on saving $500 per hour, which should work in Scorpion’s favor.
The problem is the multi-role who put value on performance buy multi-role supersonics.
This type of aircraft seems suited for a third world environment as opposed to 1st/2nd world who go multi-role supersonic. Ther third world can’t afford much at all.
PC-21 hasn’t been adopted for light strike. Most operators that utilise their old PC-7s in light strike role only do so because they can’t afford to replace them.
So what is the market for this jet?
– Europe – NO
– North America – NO
– Central America – Mexico. Anyone else is too poor to afford anything and relies on US aid.
– Latin America – Maybe someone like Peru but that’s about it. Most of the light jets have been replaced by new EMB-314s in recent years and most other A-37 operators cannot afford new aircraft (Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina).
– Middle East – NO
– Africa – NO – not many could afford it and those that could buy supersonics.
– Asia – maybe Thailand and Philippines.
So this thing looks at best the equivalent of a Hawk 200 in sales or at worst nothing at all.
thobbesLibya didnot have secatarian problem.
They didn’t during Gaddafhi because Gaddafhi made sure sectarianism was buried.
But before Gaddafhi Libya was highly sectarian and highly regionalised – Tripolitania v Cyrenaica and hostility towards Berbers and black Libyans.
thobbesControversial cause they deal with real issues at heart of modern air warfare – how to wage it, interaction with ground and naval forces, qualitative factors such as training, C4SIR, etc etc as well as the politics governing modern aerial warfare (e.g. procurement of fighters, focus on required capabilities etc).
Discussing J-XX v Su-XX v F-XX is basically discussing fantasy as there is no context to it in terms of political, human resource, military, geographic, environmental or other factors that actually determine which aircraft is successful at completing it’s mission and thus contributing to the war effort in a meaningful manner.
thobbesNo, in fact the turboprop is only marginaly cheaper. A military operator won’t even notice the cost difference.
Now $500/hr may be a big deal in the civilian world, but it’s peanuts for a military operator.
Clearly it’s important to military operators and especially third world operators who seldom have enough money for maintenance or fuel or training.
And it’s going to be third world types to whom this kind of platform appeals, not the more high end who just load up on supersonics.
As stated it’s why Hawk 200, AMX and L159s are relative flops and why EMB-314 and PC-7 are replacing jets in service.
You also forget the maintenance costs of 2 engines over 1.
IMHO that’s why this annoucnement is a big deal. We have a potential Super Tucano killer.
Probably not.
I guess it’s time to throw away all those F-16s, Migs and Mirages then.
You were talking about “going low.” Going low puts you in range of AAA and trash fire.
NATO fast burners usually do medium-high altitude strikes and with modern laser designators etc, even CAS is performed at high altitude (e.g. B-52 or B-1).
Going low is usually done in 0 threat environments (e.g. a bunch of Taliban or Iraqi insurgents holed up in a house and where risk of civilian casualties is too great. In those cases they don’t even drop ordnance most of the time.
Wait… there aren’t ANY customers for new-build Su-25s and A-10s.
Maybe because they are out of production and there is no profitable market for new builds.
As stated, most air forces prefer supersonic multirole whilst the poorer ones go for turboprops (also double up as primary/advanced trainers) and helicopter gunships (usually Mi-35 and armed Mi-17 variants).
Gosh, wonder what they know that you don’t? :p
You know they thought same thing about AMX (0 export sales), Hawk (3 export sales totally under 100 aircraft), L-159 (0 sales with maybe 1 in pipeline as LIFT for Iraq) and even IA-63 Pampa (0 export sales).
There’s other examples out there too – aircraft that never want past drawing board or prototype phase.
Meanwhile what has sold for light attack and recce roles:
EMB-314 Super Tucano
Mi-35 Hind
second hand Su-25s (in numbers as small as 2-4 aircraft mainly to African states)
AH-64 Apache and other Western helos
UAVs
Civilian planes with observation equipment e.g. Cessna 208 Caravan
thobbesBut you can bet they would be celebrating for sure. They were never best friends after all.
Too true.
They’d be hoping Chinese intelligence isn’t paying attention to all those champagne corks popping open. :eagerness::p
thobbesIndia is not a “friend of China.” You forget that China and India fought wars against each other in the 1960s and that China is allied with India’s enemy, Pakistan.
And the Russians wouldn’t get involved. They don’t want WWIII. They might continue sale of weapons, provide some diplomatic support etc but that’s it.
Remember they didn’t even really get too heavily involved in 1950-53 when China was USSR’s little student.
thobbesVietnam would probably stay quiet.
They have an actual land border with China and would not want to incur the wrath of those PLA armoured divisions sitting around doing not much, whilst the air-sea battle works itself out.
thobbesJapan would not get involved due to anti war policy of the Japanese people.
Recent trend in Japan has been towards rearmament and greater military capability and there’s even been discussion of a policy of pre-emptive strikes where required.
This is thanks to Chinese shadow boxing over Senkakus and North Korean missile tests.
India is ruled by the Aryan elite from Iran, and Iran is an ally of China. India therefore would ally with China.
I recommend you lay off the hard drugs and seek professional help.
thobbesClaims, CLAIMS, not actual 100% confirmed and verifiable kills (US and israeli military sources can’t possibly be taken for granted- unless being unbelievably naive). Probably the real number is anywhere between one third and 60% (this being the very best case scenario- unlikely imo), with perhaps a handful of LOSSES too.
What proof do you have?
Whose sources shall we believe then – Iraq never claimed any F-15s shot down and neither did the Serbs. I guess it’s naive to believe them too?
And the Serbs certainly acknowledged their casualties – there was in fact a high level investigation and from memory criminal charges laid against commanders sending defective MiG-29s out.
That leaves Syria. Though the Israelis did acknowledge 1 F-15 damaged but it landed safely.
Syrians claim 3 more F-15s shotdown but even ACIG who is usually very open to Arab claims, lists these as “Claims and unconfirmed entries ” One of the Syrian claims was actually in a fight where an F-15 scored a confirmed MiG-25 kill, and then there was some counter claims that an F-15 was shot down but again no proof.
http://www.acig.info/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=5&id=28&Itemid=47
I guess if it was Russian of PLA claims of absolute Su-27/J-10 dominance then we should all eat that up as truth as it’s not the “evil and dodgy” Israelis and their American puppet masters. :rolleyes:
Sign In
