GrMTEEJ this tread is not about Lt Col Anicic but it is about Mr Winslow T. Wheeler who is Director of Straus Military Reform Project at Centre for Defence Information in Washington, D.C and his statment to Canadian goverment.
Is he wrong?
GrMI think what you have all missed is following – officially only one F-117 was shot down / damaged . Now according to that article , and that article represent testimony of “ expert” who used to work for US government , and was giving testimony to Canadian government regarding purchase of F-35 , US Air Force has suffered two combat losses ,one shot down and second one was damaged to the point that it could not be repaired in order to fly combat missions again.
This was statement in writing by Winslow T. Wheeler, Director, Straus Military Reform Project,Center for Defense Information in Washington, D.C. on Canada’s Next Generation Fighter Aircraft to the Standing Committee on National Defence, House of Commons, Parliament of Canada.
Now my question is how much we do not know about that war , and especially about number of shot down / damaged aircrafts.
According to all “official” historians 1 x F16 and 1 x F-117 was shot down. Now according to Mr Winslow T. Wheeler who is Director of Straus Military Reform Project at Centre for Defence Information in Washington, D.C one was damaged beyond repair …so that is combat loss as well.
Is there more to be disclosed in the future?
GrMOk , have gone through most of the posts and all I can say there is a lot of “mine is bigger than yours”
First , any tactics or weapon system employed in an armed conflict is focused on goals.
How that goal is achieved , it does not matter.
Every state and its military will adopt tactics that fits their ultimate goal , and will employ military hardware in a way to that end.
Every good strategist and tactician will try to maximise effect of its own weapons and minimize effects of the enemy weapons.
Out of combination of political goals , economic strength of the state , geo political situation and quality of the military will come out one overall strategy.
Ok let’s talk about Serbia in 1999.
In 1997 some western powers instead of cooling down situation in Kosovo have declared that OVK is not a terrorist organisation and they have started providing active support .
Money , intelligence , weapons , military instructors , black ops units started pouring in to Albania and Kosovo.
That has kick started another round of insurgency in that part of the world.
Political objectives of some western powers where clear .
For whatever reason ( do not want to enter in to that discussion about reasons) they wanted Serbian military out , secession of the region away from Serbia.
Also during some final negotiations it became clear that some western powers want to have absolutely free and unrestricted access to entire Serbian territory .
Of course that was designed so that Serbia has no other choice but to refuse that proposal.
So it was , out of Kosovo , unrestricted access to entire country that would be equal to occupation.
It was impossible to accept such requests .
So all conditions where set for the war …war was inevitable.
So both sides prepared for the conflict……..
NATO strategy ……..asymmetric ground war via proxy (Albanian insurgents) with support of special operation units and massive and overwhelming air support divided in two categories .
Tactical support over the battlefield and strategic air support …unrestricted bombing of military and economic targets inside mainland Serbia .
Serbian strategy ….prevent occupation of the entire country and secession of Kosovo from Serbia.
Serbia perfectly knew they do not have power to go nose to nose with NATO Air Power.
So they have devised tactic that will protect Serbian military operations on the ground .
After 3 months of bombing and many thousand and thousand od sorties situation on the ground was as following …..
Serbian military was still in control of Kosovo and still quite effective and mobile.
Economy was damaged ……bad for the future
NATO Air Forces where tierd …in need of repair , unit rotations . Also in need of replacing spend weapons like HARM , ALARM , Sidewinders ( especially on Harriers , they were getting damaged from constant exposure to jet wash during take-off and landing) cruise missiles and so on and so on.
So it is June 1999.
Serbian military is still effectively resisting , Air War did not force Serbians to accept terms , so NATO started thinking of Ground Invasion.
Two options where examined ….invasion of Kosovo or invasion of entire Serbia.
To assemble force for the invasion of Kosovo was possible ..forces where already available in Macedonia and Albania …but since Serbian military was still quite effective it became very clear that due t that fact and due to terrain it will not be possible.
So second option was invasion of entire Serbia and that would not be possible before next winter and would require massive force .
Now NATO made very clear that it will win this war no matter what because if it is seen as lost war that would signal end of alliance.
Serbians where made aware of that.
So that created conditions for next round f negotiations …
Serbia did not want to be occupied and completely destroyed , NATO did not want to do land invasion but had no choice but to go ahead with it otherwise bye bye NATO .
So we ended up with compromise … Serbian military out of Kosovo , and UN will guarantee territorial integrity of Serbia , no secession of Kosovo ( later ignored by NATO)
NATO will not try to take over the country , also later ignored by supporting removal of Serbian president and his trial in front of the court.
So in the end NATO did not get all it wanted , Serbia did not get all it wanted ( although it got less than it hoped for)
Serbia is “West Friendly” although it is still military neutral and most likely will remain as neutral country for long time …
What you have is now angry Serbians that will wait for their moment , build its military , wait for NATO to stop existing ( 10 , 20 or even 100 years from now) and once international conditions are right will come back and take over Kosovo once again.
So all these stories, Serbians where forced to leave Kosovo because of NATO Air Power are absolute rubbish …they had to leave because land invasion was almost inevitable , an in that case bye bye independence for very very long time .
GrMGood video ….tactics well described .
What they are not saying is that SA-6 is equipped with primitive computer that will calculate likely position of the aircraft that was briefly exposed to targeting radar and indicate once in lethal , no escape zone .
Saying that , there is problem with high voltage on targeting radar .Once high voltage is brought back to activate targeting radar , fuses , sometimes , will blow .
There is same sort of problem on MiG-29 radar as well.
Another way of guiding missile is via radio command guidance channel and targeting information is obtained from TV/Laser range finder complex. (TV – azimuth and elevation …laser – range)
This is far lethal combination because there is no need for targeting radar , it goes passive all the way (that was used to take down F-117)
Still , I would go with opinion that F-16 ECM suite is capable of “assaulting” proximity radio fuse by transmitting powerful radio signal of same characteristics .
It looks that laser based proximity fuse is much better option , or direct contact.
During WWII Germans where experimenting with engine noise fuses ….match the frequency of sound and once Db’s are beyond threshold activate the warhead.
GrMI do not think SAM site was hit by HARM …not enough time , self destruction would come much later .
GrMhttp://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b9ee706c-36e5-11df-bc0f-00144feabdc0.html
In the vanguard of an arms industry revival
By Neil MacDonald in Belgrade
Published: March 24 2010 02:00 | Last updated: March 24 2010 02:00
The M-84 was meant to be the great hope of the Yugoslav arms industry.
Exports of the main battle tank – copied from the Soviet T-72, with more engine power – served with Kuwaiti troops in the US-led liberation of their emirate from Iraq in 1991. Belgrade also supplied arms worth nearly $2bn to Iraqi forces fighting Iran in the 1980s.
But the M-84 could not survive the Yugoslav wars. With key components made in Serbia, Bosnia and Montenegro, while final assembly happened in Croatia, tank manufacturing fell apart with the failed federation.
Now Serbian arms exports have started thriving again, and there are even hopes of reviving the M-84.
The largest ex-Yugoslav republic expects to export nearly $500m worth of guns, military equipment and security know-how this year, as officials tour the Middle East to revive old trade and defence ties.
Weapons and military clothing, including body armour, now account for nearly 4 per cent of exports, finance ministry officials say. “The military industry is . . . doing well in the crisis and even increasing,” says Mladjan Dinkic, minister of economy.
Companies such as Zastava Arms, which makes guns, and Utva Aircraft, which makes training aircraft, are ramping up production, and Yugoimport-SDPR, the centralised trading group for six main state-owned defence manufacturers, has started securing deals comparable to those in the late 1980s, before war and sanctions devastated the industry. “In 2009, we approached the same level [of sales] as we achieved in 1989 as the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which was three times bigger [than Serbia],” says Dragan Sutanovac, defence minister. “We think that is a great success, but it is not our final goal.”
Serbia’s best sales prospects are seen among the countries of the Non-Aligned Movement, where it was once a leading force. Some of the assortment of states that sought a middle way in the cold war used to buy Serbian arms and could do so again if the price is right. “It’s about tradition and good quality, at a good price,” Mr Sutanovac says.
Iraq in particular has proved a lucrative market, taking more than a third of last year’s exports. On visits to Baghdad last year, Mr Sutanovac signed export contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars, including an order for 20 Serbian-made training aircraft for the Iraqi air force.
To revive old ties, Belgrade’s military academy has started training Iraqi officers and medics. Officials have also talked about replacing Iraq’s “lost squadron” of MiG jet fighters – left for repairs in pre-war Yugoslavia, then mothballed amid the break-up.
“A lot of Iraqi officers and technicians are familiar with our systems,” says Stevan Nikcevic, Yugoimport director-general.
Shared interests go beyond defence. Around 60,000 Yugoslavs erected roads, bridges and power lines in the oil state before Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. “My father worked there in the mid-1980s as a construction worker,” Mr Sutanovac says.
The two countries have also had some shared experiences since the cold war. Serbia, like Iraq, spent most of the 1990s under sanctions and plunged into armed conflict with the west. Half of the defence ministry in Belgrade remains blackened from Nato missiles in 1999.
The defence minister’s last delegation to Baghdad therefore included arms traders, electrical engineers and a Serbian businessman with concerns from brass bullet casings to bakeries.
Iraqi officials talked about reconstruction jobs in all sectors worth $70bn after US forces withdraw. “We’re convinced part of that cake can go to our companies,” Mr Sutanovac says.
GrMIts not about getting the most bang for your money, its about getting the best service for your money. Sortie rates win air wars, not having more of one type. You can have fancy Mig-35s which will act nothing more as ground displays if you can’t maintain them and/or receive spare parts. You ever wonder why many air forces are having difficulties with their MiG-29s (including yours) and have even opted to keep their MiG-21s instead of the MiG-29? These Mig-21s at least, are cheaper to operate and have been more reliable.
interesting. Out of all Serbia’s neighbors, Bulgaria possesses a more potent air force (2nd to Hungary). What kind of plans has Serbia traditionally had against possible Bulgarian expansion?
None whatsoever …it is just hypothetical scenario
GrMdon’t tell that to some of our Serb friends here, they will be insulted if their air force took in some JF-17s. They want something big, new and bad to fight their non-existent air threats. 50 MiG-35’s to replace their what.. 5 MiG-29s they can barely handle? (thanks Teej for pointing this out).
landlocked countries like Serbia and even Austria don’t need something sophisticated. They simply need something that can chase out stray aircraft and quite frankly, a light fighter is good enough for their needs. be it JF-17, Tejas, or Gripen.
It is not about being insulted or not .Purchase of every aircraft is strategic decision that one will have to live with for few decades to come . No one is saying that JF-17 is not capable to accomplish air policing missions . It is not about that. By introducing something like JF-17 Serbia would need to develop entire new support infrastructure and that cost money . If Serbia goes with modernised MiG-29 that cost goes away , you get more bang for the money.
As far as non existent enemy is concerned …well that is good , last thing Serbia need is another war …but…..you never know what can and will happen in the future . Are we going to have security umbrellas like EU and NATO . Economies are weak and when it comes to money , then people starts behaving in funny and un predictable way …they will do all they can to get / save money ..so if this continues to go as it is who is it to say that one day NATO will not collapse because it will be unaffordable or EU will continue with Euro as single currency …already there are voices that are saying why do we need to pay fro Greece ….how many more cases we will have in the future . EU could then easily go away …..and what will replace , in this hypothetical scenario , those two organisationS? Who knows , but you can be sure nothing good will come out of it , only chaos and misery . That is why states are investing in to their militaries .
Ok another hypothetical scenario , NATO and EU are gone , western european nations are in even more financial problems , they are accusing each other of wrongdoing and destroying Euro and European dream , they are looking inward because they all have high unemployment , strikes , basically it is a misery . At the same time Albania see that as opportunity to expand an take Western Macedonia and Eastern Monte Negro and de facto annex it to Albania , same as with Kosovo. Bulgaria see chance to take Eastern Macedonia for it self …so you have Macedonian government screaming for help , only there is no NATO to put foot on the Bulgarian and Albanian brake. So Macedonian government calls for help …who are they going to call ? Most likely Serbia . Greece will then push for Macedonia to re unite with Serbia and by doing that they will be again direct neighbours with their Serbian allies and Macedonia as name will again become just internal name and that will resolve Greek objections .
Of course Bulgaria might object so since Serbia is helping Macedonia there you have potential for conflict .
I know , I know it is just me saying a story , but stranger things have happened in the past .
GrMThere is one thing we have to clear up once and for all. Serbia cannot plan her security and defence policy with a conflict against NATO in mind. This is ridiculous on a number of levels and I shouldn’t even have to say it. Furthermore, the current state of neutrality is probably the best foreign policy move of any government (Yugoslav or Serbian) since the death of Tito. Understandably, considering the recent history of the region, nobody is taking this stance seriously – not the Russians and not the West. However, this is just a matter of overcoming collective political memories and of Serbia sticking to her guns (so to speak). Neutrality carries with it a number of benefits, the main one which is that it helps Serbia to avoid being a target for anybody’s future sabre-rattling. Should Serbia join NATO she would be one of the Alliance’s weakest members and also the one which Russia would be most eager to teach a lesson. This is obviously unlikely to manifest itself as a military attack but could easily result in greater political instability (as Russia switches to supporting local political parties that would try to pull out of NATO or at least cease to cooperate fully – a la France in the late 50s). Russia would also almost certainly put economic pressure on the country, something Serbia is poorly positioned to withstand. Finally, espionage and subversive infiltration of Serbia would be another unfortunate side effect. All of these things hold true if Serbia attempts a swing in the other direction (simply switch NATO and Russia in the preceding sentences).
Now, assuming Serbia isn’t arming to fight another war against NATO and that her leaders remain clever enough to maintain a stout military neutrality, what then is the purpose of having fighter aircraft anyway? I would argue that retaining a credible air force is an important policy. My arguments would be as follows:
1. The primary role of fast jets in Serbia at the moment and for the foreseeable future is air policing. Now, clearly the MiG-29s operated now are too few in number to perform this role effectively and that’s why the ‘21s are still around – though they are in no state to soldier on. This, however, does not equate to a pressing need to purchase or lease new aircraft. Even if Serbia is forced to rely only on the Fulcrums in the near future this would not be the end of the world. Firstly, for a number of targets in the air policing role the G-4s and J-22s are sufficiently fast and can perform the duties required of them. Secondly, the air force is supplemented by the air defence units. This, in combination with a couple of Fulcrums is really enough to perform peacetime air policing in Serbia – especially considering the fact that all her neighbours are in NATO, resulting in a significantly reduced need for high intensity air policing. Basically, air policing alone is not enough of a reason for Serbia to purchase new combat aircraft but is an argument for hanging on to current capabilities.
2. The second important reason, and one which does perhaps suggest a need for the procurement of new jets, is the necessity of maintaining capability and know-how for a future threat environment. Serbia’s current situation, that of a small and relatively frail (militarily and politically) state smothered on all sides by NATO’s currently warm embrace, does not look like being a permanent one. As we saw in the early Autumn ‘08, states that perceive themselves to be militarily competent are capable of doing crazy things and taking on even those much more powerful than themselves. Serbia is in close proximity to several countries that are potential candidates for this kind of behaviour in the future (and that bear grudges that could easily resurface) and should maintain not only a deterrent but also a credible defensive capability. With that in mind, continuity of operation of fast jets is highly desirable and brings with it a number of benefits. The benefits include maintaining a cadre of pilots able to pass on their knowledge and to, potentially, export it (in the sense that foreign air forces may be willing to send their cadets to Serbia for training). This goes for the logistics and ground crews too. The obvious negative side of this is that it is a massive expense that Serbia cannot really afford and that the vast majority of this money is destined to go abroad without providing jobs or broadening the experience of local industry and manpower. Sure, Serbian companies could develop peripheral systems but this seems unlikely and is, in any case, a tiny fraction of the overall cost. This negative side is impossible to counter – it is simply something Serbia will have to put up with one day.
So, if Serbia is to continue to operate a meaningful air force, what should this look like? Obviously it will need 12 – 24 modern fast jets eventually in order to perform in the roles mentioned in the above arguments and to provide some semblance of a precision deep-strike (in the very local, Balkan sense) capability*. Whether these end up being F-16s or Gripens or Fulcrums is almost irrelevant – the only important factor would be that they outperform (or at least outnumber) aircraft operated by potential local rivals (i.e. in all probability not including Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary or Greece). The only thing we can be sure of is that a purchase is not imminent. Neither should it be – it should, in my opinion be delayed as long as the economy is in such a fragile state.
As for ground attack or CAS capability, here something really does need to be done. This is why talk of procuring new aircraft really makes me angry. A much more urgent need would be the modernisation of existing ground attack assets. Specifically, I would like to see the following happen (in the order shown):
1. Helicopters, especially the Gazelles and Hinds, need to be upgraded with TI equipment and otherwise be made fully night capable. They should also be fitted with the best defensive suites money can buy/local industry can supply. This would enable them to operate alongside army and Ministry of Internal Affairs personnel in the Security Zone along the border with Kosovo and to provide crucial intelligence** about the movement of potentially subversive elements across the border – especially at night. They could also operate in a supporting combat role should hostilities escalate in this region.
2. Existing Serbian UAV programmes need to be significantly improved in order to support such operations. Israeli UAVs are okay but really Serbia should be looking to make them locally in as much as that is possible.
3. The ground attack component of the air force should be modernised to make it able to operate at night and to deliver precision munitions relevant to CAS. If what the air force top brass says is true, that the airframes and engines can soldier on for a good while longer, then a modernisation programme is critical. The G-4s should be relatively easy to modernise – a programme already exists and needs to be implemented faster even if this means delaying the purchase of a new combat aircraft. The only problem I can see with the existing G-4M programme (or whatever they’re calling it now) is that it doesn’t provide acceptable night-fighting capability. This should be addressed. As for the J-22s – these are a bit more difficult. The fantasies of Serbian fanboys aside, the Orao’s nose won’t take a radar but it might (with perhaps French or Israeli assistance) take a FLIR. If integrated with precision munitions this could keep the J-22s relevant to Serbia’s needs for the next decade or so. Any upgrade of J-22s or G-4s must include a comprehensive overhaul of the navigation and communication equipment – as this is currently woeful.
These upgrade programmes are more pressing than procurement of foreign kit as they represent an investment in the technology and know-how base of the country and also significantly improve Serbia’s ability to defend herself against both the unconventional threat or cross-border subversion (should that arise or increase) and of local conflicts with relatively evenly-matched neighbours.
* This is important, in my view, because Serbia is currently in unable to strike at valuable targets within a potentially hostile neighbour’s territory. In the event of open conflict with a local adversary, the ability to hit targets (such as, for example, munitions factories or fuel storage facilities) deep in the opponent’s territory could be a war-winning force multiplier.
** In a manner not necessarily too dissimilar to the operation of civilian police helicopters in urban areas.
Agree 100% ….G-4 and J-22 should be modernised with night – all weather gear and latest generation of either locally produced or imported PGM .
I would prefer locally manufactured PGM because knowledge and prototypes are already there .
UAV prototypes are also available so Serbia should start making them.
As far as fighter force is concerned MiG-29 (35) will do fine.
One more thing ,above assets are important but transport aviation should also be beefed up , primarily with as many transport helicopters as possible . Political situation does not allow to maintain massive force in Security Zone so it would be good if there is capability to ferry emergency force to security zone rapidly (or go deeper if necessary) like in good old times when 63rd airborne had 20 Mi-8 plus minimum 4 -5 An-24 available at any time for rapid deployment.
Those where the times
, waking up to the noise of An-24 turboprops …..ahh good old times 🙂
GrMWell thats all Serbia was missing from dominating the Balkans…an air force 🙂
Now that thats been cleared up…we can move on.
Kapendi , Serbia , even today ahs the most advanced Air Force of the all former Yugoslav republics . Slovenia is flying turbo props good only for COIN duties . Croatia has only few MiG-21bis , BiH no operational combat jets and jets that belong to RS will most likely go to Serbia .Monte Negro has G-4 left but has no money to operate them so they will most likely go to Serbia .Macedonia had Su-25 but under NATO political pressure had to return all of them to Ukraine (a bit embarrassing if you ask me )
Only Greece , Romania and Bulgaria have credible AF …rest of Balkan countries have Air Force but no or very few fast jets .
Serbia still have fighter force (mix of MiG-21bis and Mig-29) ,J-22 in ground / rece role , G-4 as training / ground attack and very soon Lasta 95 as trainer.
Not bad for country of only 9 million people , and if you take Kosovo out most likely around 7 – 71/2 million , country that went head to head with Air Force’s of many NATO countries .
Serbia will , sooner or later , for the reasons of national pride , geo politics and geo strategy update its Air Force. All evidence is there , radar network is upgraded and modernised , SAM systems are being modernised , design of smart weapons is under way so next logical step is to bring SrAF to its full strength.
Even if Serbia one day joins NATO or any other security and defence organisation , is in it better to join as as equal partner (as much as possible) or as country that can not maintain its contractual obligations?
GrMSino-Serbian relations are quite good , but I do not think it will go that far .
GrMThe Fighter Effect
High-performance jet aircraft are unique in the arsenals of world air forces. More than any other weapon—except possibly the aircraft carrier—air-to-air fighters represent power. They have a symbolic effect far outweighing their actual military utility, and for good reason. They are sleek. They are loud. They look and sound like state power. Many nations buy pricey fighter squadrons for their prestige value alone.
http://the-diplomat.com/2010/03/05/us-eyeing-asian-arms-race/
And how things can change over night…..
GrMAs sarcastic as you might be ..no Serbia will never assemble something as complex as that …it would be stupid.
As far as being land locked , surrounded with NATO , impotent as Albania…..few facts….
Serbia even now has one of most modern and best trained armed forces in that region , especially when it comes to ground forces.
http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n212028
Serbia has no intention expanding in to anything.
As a matter of fact Serbia is better without Kosovo , it was just financial drain on state resources.
However nothing last forever…all of these alliances and empires sooner or later come to an end …so will NATO one day .What will come instead of it , your guess is as good as mine …..new pan Europe alliance , chaos …who knows .
That is why Serbia is neutral (among other things ) and that is why it will maintain credible military force like peace loving Switzerland …you never know what will happen in 10 , 20 or 30 years time.
As far as your reference to 1999 war , it is clear you do not know details of that war , and why MiG-29 performed badly .To understand you would need to understand Serbian politics , in detail , between 1991 and 1999 ….relation between state and military and state and police …..who was more important and who was better financed , who was in command of Air Force and how those people where thinking , was it more important to kiss presidents rear end or to stand ground and get what was necessary to defend country , make sure that units receive all training and spare parts that where necessary and so on and so on ….I have no intention to educate you , it would take too much of my time to do that.
GrMBeing double engined doesn’t have anything to do with fuel consumption, the F-5, Jaguar, Ching Kuo are all double engined, but this doesn’t mean they suck up fuel to no avail. It has to do with the engine itself.
The first sentence vastly contradicts the second. So the Su-30 is too big and expensive but the PAK FA is not?
It will be kind of hard for Serbia to get attacked by NATO again, especially if Serbia is part of it, as is its goal.
Applications
F-15 Eagle
F-15E Strike Eagle
F-16 Fighting Falcon
X-47B Pegasus
[edit] Specifications (F100-PW-229)
General characteristics
Type: Afterburning turbofan
Length: 191 in (4,851 mm)
Diameter: 46.5 in (1,181 mm)
Dry weight: 3,740 lb (1,696 kg)
Components
Compressor: Axial compressor with 3 fan and 10 compressor stages
Bypass ratio: 0.36:1
Turbine: 2 low-pressure and 2 high-pressure stages
Performance
Maximum Thrust:
17,800 lbf (79.1 kN) military thrust
29,160 lbf (129.6 kN) with afterburner
Overall pressure ratio: 32:1
Specific fuel consumption:
Military thrust: 0.76 lb/(lbf·h) (77.5 kg/(kN·h))
Full afterburner: 1.94 lb/(lbf·h) (197.8 kg/(kN·h))
Thrust-to-weight ratio: 7.8:1 (76.0 N/kg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_&_Whitney_F100
Here are some examples: Flying gas-guzzling bomber B-52 burns about 3300 gallon per hour, flying gas stations KC-135 and KC-10 (aerial refueling tankers) burn on average 2650 and 2070 gallons per hour respectively. Famous F-15 and F-16 fighter aircrafts burn about 1580 and 800 gallons per hour respectively.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29925
Su-27/30/33/35 and so on are to expensive at the momment.
In 10 years economy will improve ( I hope) and then PAK-FA might be an option.
Serbia will not become NATO , it has been decided to be neutral …that is why Serbia is looking to maintain Air Force with reasonable fire power for long time to come .People are against becoming NATO member and it will be political suicide for any politician that directs Serbia in that direction.
GrMUnless France wants to finance entire project , and I do not see that happening , NA project will never become reality . UTVA , the manufacturer of Lasta 95 can barley make that aircraft , let alone 4+ gen combat aircraft . It will take at least next 15 – 20 years to reach level of technical excellence that would allow Serbia Aerospace Industry to start thinking about such advance project.
Maximum that can be expected from local defence industry is modernisation of G-4 , airframe life extension of J-22 , production of Lasta 95 , cruise missile , laser / tv guided ammunition and UAV .
Rest is pure fantasy and should not even enter any serious discussion .
As far as procurement of new combat aircraft is concerned MiG-35 has best chances .Support infrastructure already exists , ground personnel and pilots are fairly familiar with hardware so staying with MiG’s would be logical choice . Best price / performance for Serbian Air Force .
One has to take in to account that Air Force Chief would like to have minimum 10 to 12 but ideally 20 to 24 new airframes ….going with MiG might just alow him to do that.
Since Mig-29/35 is twin engine aircraft, to fly it it cost twice as much in fuel consumption compared to single engine aircraft ( and fuel availability is big issue in SAF) At the moment pilots are doing 25 to 30 hours of flying per year and target is 80 hours , so going with aircraft that is cheaper to operate from fuel consumption point of view is also logical choice so I think that JAS-39 and F-16 will be seriously examined as a possible 2nd and 3rd best option.
Rest of the aircrafts are simply to expensive to buy and to expensive to operate .
Suggestions like buy Chinese equipment , then go to Israel and modernise them is again too expensive so that will not happen.
In the end I think MiG route will be taken , but JAS-39 will be seriously examined. I remember talking to JAS-39 demo pilot at Farnborough , and he told me that SAAB would be more than happy to talk with Serbia if such request is received from Serbian government , and I would imagine LM would be very happy to talk , since Serbian AF pilots had chance to test drive F-16 in Italy.
Su series is to big and expensive , so is Rafale and Typhoon.
To be honest , best choice would be to rent few MiG and wait till PAK-FA is available and if politics and price is right go with such option .If you are spending money on something that you will use for next 30 40 years , and you can not afford more then 10 – 12 airframes it would be better to wait for next 10 years , work on improving economy and buy some serious piece of aircraft that will add significant fire power and capability.
We have seen when Air Force with few modern aircrafts goes against ultra modern air force ……it is one sided contest ….so go with something that can seriously rattle oppositions cage and serve as deterrent.
Sign In
