Can anyone guess what aircraft I would like to sell to the US to makeup for its financial position cum milavia cliff?
new Chinese aircraft carrier under construction. Looks to me like an evolution of the Varyag and my best speculation is that it’ll be a bit bigger.
http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2013/08/identified-under-construction-chinas.html
JF-17 rumor for Sri Lanka is the first I have heard. I hope it goes through.
What would be interesting is if the JSF was transferred to Boeing to “finish the job” and manufacture as a penalty for LM…
That’s so unorthodox!
What concerns me most is that top positions are not being based on merit alone but other factors. Also, to lose a well established brand name would be sheer folly.
Thanks Y20 for a very nice and humorous summary!
Hey Y-20, why does South Africa want to dump the uber plane that you love so much and you’ve always figured as far superior to the JF-17? 😉
What confidence does that give to clients of the Gripen NG? Maybe you should give up on your hate campaign of the JF-17 and come to terms with something people sometimes refer to as reality… 😉
Some brilliant posts, and I am truly grateful for the discussion. I want to thank LEG parituclarly for post 57, what a post!!!!!!
I shall get back shortly with a more meaningful post than this!
Another way to look at it – do we expect attack helos
and Su25s to wait for air superiority in a peer conflict? Wouldn’t make sense.
Even in 1982, with israel having complete air superiority, one of the biggest headaches remained armed helos on CAS.
In a world were infantymen still have to storm the front…
Your requirements are poor.
Hi Amiga, I am just trying to hash these ideas.
1 & 2 are not mutually exclusive, but are diametrically opposed.
Maybe but that didn’t stop Stukas and IL-2s from being excellent and survivable CAS platforms…
As for 3 – the cost of fast-jet pilot training was about £6 million ($9 million) per pilot 15 years ago.
Ah, its not a fast jet…
If you insist on using an aircraft for CAS in contested airspace… then F-15E or Su-34. Both are man enough to hold their ground in an A2A fight without immediately resorting to being a mission-kill and have a non-negligible A2G persistence.
That would be counter-productive as you want all your fast jet assets to essentially focus on winning the air-war first, where F-15Es and Su-34s would be invaluable…
CAS targets today are pointed out, perhaps with a laser designator, on the ground by a couple of specially trained men
working with the troops on ground, they can tell the artillery the same thing.
(nuke coordinate x,y)
Hi obligatory, I understand your point but targeting on foot can only work in the front lines, with very limited depth penetration. On the other hand, a CAS aircraft can fly 20 miles behind the enemy and take out a MBRL unit or artillery.. by first locating fire by a simple radar, moving to the location, and destroying the unit(s).
*****While remember, even the lightest artillery and with self-propelled ones even, in operational practice always remain behind a rapidly moving armoured thrust. The only thing that can keep up and make it easy for the panzer-kiel remains the CAS… *****
Flying back it can come across a squadron of tanks, rip through them and journey back home. This kind of capability simply remains unmatched even with all the laser designation teams.
CAS in congested airspace – precision guide arty shells, mortar shells and missiles.
This is a good question, why choose CAS over modern artillery and missiles?
1. You need to locate the enemy to target it. Once located, such targets are time-sensitive.
2. Mobility is a key problem with alternatives. There simply is not a platform that is useful at destroying enemy tanks, artillery, bridges, other important equipment / command nods than a CAS aircraft.
3. (answers djcross also)One could say that UAVs can be an alternative. However, there are certain major drawbacks.
a) UAVs do not have situational awareness on the ground specially related to own troops.
b) They are susceptible to jamming and range is limited, unless satellite data links are available, which can be a bottleneck and expensive for most countries.
c) Survival of CAS UAVs / manned platforms are dependent on staying extremely low (nap of the earth or even below tree top). This cannot be done effectively with a control delay. Flying higher than tree top means the airwar going on in the contested airspace above will notice you and pick you out.
2 things:
– The plane you describe is for a suicide mission in this case
– Turbofans running on diesel: The Su-25 could. It could run on about anything.
Frank, the A-10 and Su-25 were both themselves designed for “contested airspace” i.e. the European theater. Remember Hans Rudel as well as other Stuka pilots did an amazing job and continued doing an amazing job long after air supremacy was lost by the Germans.
Staying low, operating from small runways, a small CAS aircraft will stay out of the air war above, largely. Spread out, dispersed, they can be a very effective ground war weapon. Think of it – the Apache and other attack helos have to consider the same prospects when operating against a peer enemy.
Thanks, I didn’t know the Su-25 could operate using diesel!
…battle of air superiority comes first
I totally agree, however, think of this as not from the Airforce budget but the Army budget. This means that it is not a competing resource with a2a but a competing resource vis-a-vis artillery, tanks, etc.