Hello all. Does anyone know who to contact within the Hellenic armed force to discuss the purchase of some of their older derelict aircraft? Many thanks.

Last time I checked, you would need to contact the Air Force Support Command. When our T-37s were retired, they were sold as scrap, the ASC was responsible for all the precedures. The auction was held in public, anyone with the highest bid could buy them. However I can’t be more helpfull at this time, if you could wait untill tomorrow, I could get you some more contact info.

You declare these to be facts. Says who?

You are asking because you don’t know and need to learn, or because somehow you expect a specific answer?

Your use of combat losses is an odd way to make a point. If the Pak F-104 loss rate to MiG-21s makes the F-104 a “bad” fighter, does that mean the Egyptian and Syrian MiG-21 loss rate to the IAF makes the MiG-21 a “bad” fighter too? This is so confusing.

I didn’t mention anything specifically about MiG-21s; the whole point is that the F-104 was used as a fighter with poor results. So changing the subject to israeli wars does not credit you with arguments or extra credibillity.

There is a significant difference between posting a question as compared to posting unsupported opinion. Like some others on these types of forums, you post your opinion as if it were fact.

F-104s fail in indo-pakistani wars is not an opinion which could potentially be disputed. Strike aircraft being unsuited for air combat is not an opinion which could potentially be disputed.

I find you comprehensible, just not very credible.

There is a saying for such cases “Do not judge, or you too will be judged”. Obviously doesn’t apply for the US 😛

On my behalf, all I can say is that your credentials do not correspond to your writings.

But it doesn’t really matter, does it? After all, one should discuss with other forum members, not about other forum members.

More absolutism. If one thing in fighter aviation has been true, it’s that people’s opinions of what the future holds ought to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

It’s not absulutism, and the fact that you disagree for your own reasons does not make it absolutism. My statement is true for way too many air forces of the past decades to be taken as such. Again: It’s not my opinion.

Other than that, nobody can predict the future, although what I said was about the past.

Edit: The reason for the slightly aggressive stance was the absoluteness of HAWX’s comments as you also later picked up upon.
Given that as i stated i’m sure he has no relevant experience to draw upon to make such absolute comments i find them annoying and largely worthless.
If he had posed them as questions it would be a different matter.

No worries, I have worst from time to time :rolleyes:

Some portions of my posts are my opinion, it’s obvious; the rest is facts, I’m sorry.

No, it’s called tightening budgets and a dislike amongest the fj community of anything that is seen as a “army” asset. Read the history of the A10, the USAF has been attempting to retire it almost since IOC!
That’s fact not extrapolated spectulation presented as fact.

In case you didn’t notice, this argument reinforces my own; indeed, only two countries in the world ever produced dedicated CAS aircraft, and one of them was not too happy about them in the first place.

It was one HAWX who stated that the F22 was “jack of all trades but master of a2a.”

No my friend. I never said that. If you go back, you will see that it was a correction made to another point by alfakilo. Much ado about nothing, sorry.

That implies that it is fully multirole and thus would include cas as one of those roles.
Clearly you do not realise the implications of what you write, perhaps you should consider withdrawing the statement.

Thank you for verifying my words. Indeed then you are actually reading what you want to read.

Nothing bold about it at all, it is simply fact. Anybody with an interest and knowledge of modern aviation is aware of it. If they are not perhaps they should consider the wisdom of sharing their “opinion” prior to ensuring they are fully informed.
Your subsequent comments re production lines etc. are silly. I suggest you look at the state of the British economy and finances to discover why the F3’s were withdrawn. (Oop’s sorry for mentioning economy…;-))

I was being ironic, yes, I admit. But other than that, you fail to grasp the point. If indeed the F3 so capable as to “regularly beating F-16s and F-15s”, then there is something wrong with the picture. Why everyone keeps buying F-16s and F-15s then? Forget the re-open line etc, why nobody rushed in to buy even second hand F3s withdrawn from service? As alfakilo put it “This is so confusing”. :rolleyes:

The F-104 was designed as a fighter, & later modified as a ground-attack aircraft. The original F-104A was procured by the USAF Air Defense Command. The definitive strike version, the F-104G, had a reinforced airframe.

Actually it was designed with two things in mind. Rapidly take off, fly high and intercept russian bomb trucks, or rapidly take off, sneak in and drop tactical nukes. It was not designed as a fighter, and the airforces which used it as such regreted it (quoting a retired F-104G HAF pilot when asked to comment on the unusally high accident rate of the F-104.)

From what I’ve read, the Pakistanis (in F-104As, i.e. pure fighters) who were shot down by MiG-21s tried to engage in a turning dogfight, i.e. fighting to the strengths of the MiG-21, not the F-104. Don’t blame the aircraft for the mistakes of its pilots.

I have to admit something for the shake of being earnest: When I mentioned the F-104 I had the Folland Gnat in mind. I realise now that it earned a reputation as “Sabre-killer”, in fact it had little encounters with Pakistani F-104s; this however doesn’t change the fact that the F-104 performed poorly as a fighter in that war.

The Italians had to lease aircraft in a hurry because their F-104s were wearing out & (because of politicians faffing around) their Eurofighters were late.

Even steven.

Perfectly said.

Perhaps you should try to explain that to their widows, and I’m not talking wartime alone.

The idea that I get is that you have a difficult time dealing with an opposite point of view.

ditto on this one. :rolleyes:

The point is that arguments like this are not credible. Pilots win and lose engagements, not airplanes.

Sir, please accept the opposite point of view: Airplanes plus pilots plus some other factors win engagements, not pilots alone.

If this was the case, then there would be no reason for fighter planes to evolve; we would still be flying Sopwith Camels and just evolve pilot training.

How many of you experts who know so much have received air support whilst in contact with hostiles?
I’m betting the answer is none.

And how is that relevant to the discussion? Are you implying that only a combatant’s opinion is the single, valid truth out there? If so, that’s fine, but personally I disagree.

To alfakilo’s point; you can speculate on paper as much as you want, in the real world your paper wafflings are worth diddly squat.

Other than speculation and paper wafflings (as you like to call an opinion you don’t like or agree) there are also cold facts: Only two countries in the entire world have developed dedicated CAS aircraft, both countries are withdrawing them in different rates with no plans of substituting them with other dedicated CAS aircraft. Do you seriously believe this was out of pure spontaneous luck?

Tucano’s: Yep, sure, as long as there is either 1) no hostiles on the ground with a heavy machine gun or 2) you are prepared to lose a number of aircraft and crew.

Tucano is a little less than semi measures compared to the A-10 in terms of capability. But that’s not the point, sadly.

There is a reason A10’s make it back with considerable damage.

Yes, indeed there is. What can I say? Great apokalypsis. :rolleyes:

Now onto the really amusing bit, F22’s as close air support aircraft…thanks for the laugh, very good HAWX. Strike is not cas.

No SNAFU, I thank YOU for the laugh. F22 as CAS? Incredible. Who on earth possibly thought of something like that? Certainly not someone in this thread. Your imagination then, maybe, AKA you reading what you want to read? :p

Also HAWX your definition of multirole seems to slide and change as you see fit. F104 not mulitrole, so it was performing nuclear and conventional strike whilst being able to provide self escort in either of those roles, how is that not multirole (particularly for the time)?

If you install AIM-9s on a P-3C, it will have some air to air ability. Will it make the P-3C a fighter and thus a multi-role aircraft? Extreme example, but you get the point.

In the same sense, installing AIM-9s on an F-104 will make it a fighter? Aspides maybe? AFAIK, it did really bad in the indo-pakistani wars when they tried to to use it as a fighter, and later, the Italians were rather panicked when they realised they had only Aspide capable F-104s for securing the Adriatic in the 90s. Strange facts, no?

The F22 can perform a2a and strike, no cas, no recce, no antiship, no nuclear delivery.

Exactly. Same was with the F-15A/B. Then came the F-15E. It came because it was able to come. It could evolve into a very capable A2G platform. The opposite cannot be said for any strike aircraft.

The final version of the Tornado F3 was actually a very capable a2a platform, regularly beating F16’s and F15’s in a2a. Your disparaging of the F3 is also inaccurate.

This is a rather bold statement, frankly. If you are right, then the British did a very stupid thing, withdrawing fighters capable of “regularly beating F16s and F-15s”. They should keep them, in fact they should re-open the production line. Half the world operates F-16s and F-15s, so the other half would be really keen in procuring Tornado F3s to defend against them. Panavia must be a very lucky aircraft maker! :rolleyes:

As another poster has already commented upon, I’m not sure what you are trying to say other than you seem to define a conversation as when your opinions come out on top.

But maybe I am misjudging you. Perhaps you have the requisite experience in these aircraft to back up your opinions. Is that the case?

You are misjudging me in the sense that you try to think of me under your own criteria, obviously finding me uncomprehensible. Of course you may believe that you know the whole truth and everybody else should burn in hell for heresy. But maybe I am misjudging you.

There once was a time when there really were multi-role fighters…and that saying was quite applicable to them.

I on the other hand remember a time when each combat wing in most Air Forces was operating a different aircraft type for a different mission. And you know what? This time is long gone. Plain and simple

Not really. Everything is relative. Then or now, there will likely be tradeoffs when attempting to do more with less.

True. There are always many compromises in an aircraft design.

Would that count?

As you have probably figured out from my last comment, I don’t have to rely on comments from relatives to have an opinion on these matters. Six years and 1200 hours of Hog time gotta be worth something…and that’s not counting ten years in the F-4 and F-104!

If this is the base of your arguments, then there is only one possible conclusion: That only combat pilots should be allowed to post, everybody else should be prohibited from questioning those posts and if so, banned. In fact the whole forum should be switched to read-only mode for everyone else.

Like I said, such an attitude is a rather clumsy way to avoid discussion.
Respectfully.

Didn’t Elbit (by circuitous route) end up owning Fairchild?

UCAV Hogs would suit the IAF admirably I’d have thought.

Good point.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=97923

Back in the day when fighters actually were multi-role aircraft (such as the F-4 and F-104, for example), this meant the jets were used for nuke strike, conventional A2G, A2A (interceptor and fighter), and recce.

I’m glad to see you suggesting those days are back again.

Back again? Hardly. The F-104 was not multi-role to begin with. It was a tactical nuke striker, and really bad in every other aspect. Also at the time the F-104 and F-4 were relevant, multi-role was more close to science fiction for most countries who used to have dedicated squadrons with dedicated aircraft types for each mission. Even the F-4 had a dedicated recce version and *could not* switch from one role to another.

It’s a little difficult for a time that never existed… to return.

Which 5th gen multi-role aircraft did you have in mind?

It doesn’t have to do with me and what I believe. There is only one operational 5th gen aircraft at the moment and for several years to come, and frankly, it takes lots of fantasy to call it “jack of all trades, master of none”.

Truth however is that dedicated air combat fighters could and did evolve to excellent bombers (F-15E, Su-34 etc) but never the other way round, which is why the A-10 is totally irrelevant today.

Turkey was offered 40 A-10A’s in 1993 and procurement procedures were initiated. They were to be deployed at 8th Main Jet Base in Diyarbakir (some sources say a squadron in Diyarbakir and a squadron in Balikesir or Bandirma).

But then came the catastrophic 1994 economic crisis, which made it impossible to allocate enough funds for infrastructure and operational costs.

By the way, regular conscripts are not being deployed to frontline operations for a long time.

Turkey has lost 2 x AH-1W, one AS-532, one or two S-70A’s to PKK ground fire since the armed conflict began in 1984. One of the AH-1W’s and the AS-532 to SA-7 in mid 1990’s, the other AH-1W to RPG fire during Operation Sun in Northern Iraq in 2008 .

Thanks for the info 😀

A-10s were also offered to Greece in around the same period, but the Air Force chiefs figured out that it would be more prudent to select surplus Navy A-7Es, also offered for free at the same period. A-7Hs were already in service, so it was pretty expected choice.

Generally speaking, in the era of multi-role, a highly specialised aircraft such as the A-10 is little more than a relic.

Yep, it is stupid and pointless.

plus it gives scale model makers a hard time 😀

The French have nothing to laugh about right now, and between Britain and France right now, it’s the British who have the most to be happy about, not the French.

Being happy is nothing to boast about…

Depend if its nuclear powered or not. Plus a carrier group is usually made of a support ship or ships that can provide unlimited supply. So as long as you have the money and the infrastructures you shouldn’t ever run out.

But is there any figure?

Exagerated . India will get the HMD in 2018 . Dunno about France yet …

Cheers .

Yes I ‘m exaggerating. Both lacks can easily be dealt with if just enough money is poured in to develop respective systems. France has decided that for them it’s not a priority, so other than some failed efforts in the past (topsight), they have not done anything.

At the time however, the simple and cold fact is that no Rafale operational squadron of the French Air Force uses an HMD in combo with a true HOBS missile. On the other hand the JHMCS has been operational since 2003, has logged thousand of flying hours with various fighter types, and had the ability to be evolved and improved over the years.

In this aspect, talking about “years behind the competition” (9 so far to be exact) is hardly an exaggeration. In fact, if India procures HMDs by 2018 as you said, it reinforces this point even further.