Originally posted by A-29
m.ileduets,

Regarding the Swiss F-18s, I fully agree with you. Right now, they are trying to sell the new Super Hornet, but, probably, will face, in near future, the same problem that happened with your AF.

I got your point, but, the Mirage and the Draken are different categories of fighters, they are larger than the F5 and has more powerful engines (Mach2+).
We use them for at least 30 years and they are simply loved by their pilots and a star at airshows down here. Its noise and shape are unforgettable.

Regards,
😎

They were trying to sell the Super Hornet to Brazil? That’s news to me. When did it drop out of the competition?

As to different categories: Yes, the Mirage is indeed a little bigger. But if you look at recent small jets like the T-50, the Yak 135 or the Aermacchi 345 you will notice that they achieve a thrust/ weight ratio around or bigger than 1:1. I’d wish the Tiger could compete with these. It’s not all a matter of size 😉

24 MiG’s require additional maintennance and suplly lines, so it males sense to replace them and the F-4 with one fighter.

Well, how should an upgrade and maintenance of just five Mig-29 be any cheaper? Romania (with more Mig-29 airframes) has decided against it, why should it be any wiser for S&M?

Even if S&M could obtain additional airframes from other users, the acquisition and upgrade wouldn’t come for free. Further I doubt that an upgrade would significantly reduce maintenance costs.

S&M can’t afford a cost trap in their current situation. Just like Germany, it should try to reduce its current variety to just one multi role fighter plane. Sell or scrap everything else.

If the Mig-21 (which at least would be available in sufficient numbers) can’t be upgraded like in Romania to fill in as a bridgegap, try to lease a few Gripens. I think the Czech Republic and Hungary have decided wisely. The Gripen will be cheap to fly and maintain and fullfills all needs. CZ and HUN are in the S&M league, not a country like Poland, who can obviously afford Mig-29 acquisitions and upgrades as a bridgegap solution.

Here’s sth. that has been written on the Hungary lease decision and the situation in other eastern European countries. S&M seems to be pretty much in the same situation and could learn from CZ, HUN, and ROM.

“The Hungarian Fulcrums will go once the Gripens are fully operational as a squadron, that I’m sure of. They have 27 MiG-29s making up a single wing of two squadrons at the same base. How many of these are in flyable condition at the moment I don’t know, but it’s not many. No contract has been announced for upgrade and they will doubtless be put out to grass at Papa with the 70-odd other MiGs and Su-22s once Gripen is in service. None of the Hungarian AF L-39 trainers are airworthy at present but some will be again by March.

Incidentally, something that I doubt you’ll have read yet is that Romania has just withdrawn all its MiG-29s from service and all 18 are up for sale. The unit at Constanta will re-equip with MiG-21 Lancers.

I’m sure once Slovakia decide what to buy their Fulcrums will also be withdrawn: I think only six were operational when we visited Sliac last year, though they don’t like to admit to figures like that…

This maybe some way off though as Slovakia has agreed a contract to overhaul theirs and a decision on “12 new fighters” is probably a good few years away.

So, Poland will be the place in Europe for Fulcrum lovers: they should have around 40 making up two squadrons once they integrate the 23 they are receiving from the German AF.

Steve ~ Touchdown-News

link

Originally posted by A-29
m.ileduets,

Some say that is the best upgrade for an F-5, to keep the jet flying for another 15 years.
There are rumours, but, the probability is to purchase BVR missiles from Israel.
But, the missiles dependes who will be the FX winner. In case of the SU-35 or JAS-39 wins, the possibility is the Derby. But, if the M2000-5Br wins, the MICA could be adopted to the fleet of F-5s. One thing that I forgot to mention, the new F-5 will be fully NVG compatible.

Thanks to you and Malandro. Great AMX-pic!
If the public opinion won’t change much here in Switzerland in the near future, we might end up with a similar solution, as the necessity for a F-5 replacement is not seen by a majority.

Just retiring them is more likely, but it would make me feel slightly uneasy to rely entirely on the F/A-18. There was a spare part shortage issue at one point and a fleet grounding, too.

By the way: how to you assess the impact of the upgrade on its AtoG capabilities? The radar should make it more capable there. The Swiss AF wants to regain this asset.

The Brazil and Singapore upgrades make the good old Tiger look quite attractive again. The main limitation for the F-5 (apart from the age of the airframe) seems to be the fact that it’s a bit underpowered for today’s standard. That’s why I liked the Tigershark prototype. A shame it didn’t go into production. Are there no attempts made to build in different engines?

For once I agree completely with Dubya. 😉

First sort out your political and economical problems before dreaming of costly fighter plane acquisitions. What you now need is counter- insurgence capabilities and just a minimum of air defence. There’s no way to counter NATO anyway, and to keep your unfriendly small neighbours at bay, a few upgraded Mig-21/ G-4s or inexpensive lease bridgegaps will do the job.
Germany retired their ageing Mig-29s first (before F-4) for a good reason: They are a maintenance nightmare.

Originally posted by GrM
Hmm, MAKO, now that is something that I never considered. It looks like very interesting project …

First of all The Mako is a paper- plane. It might very well never be built. It seems rather useless to discuss this option now. Wait another 5-10 years for these sort of considerations.

Second: Political decisions have to be taken first, because they entail different strategies. Up to now, S&M seems rather indecided wether it wants to cooperate with the west, and eventually become part of NATO and/or the EU, or pursue a more nationalist and isolationist path. Likewise the economical development has to be taken into consideration. Will S&M be able to get into a phase of reconstruction with an economical boost kicking in, or will lethargy and stagnation continue?

Concentrate on your most pressing defence needs like helicopters or props for counter- insurgence. As to the fighter- plane fleet: In the current phase, inexpensive bridgegap measures seem to be the best option to me: Upgrade programs for a reduced fleet of G-4 and Mig-21 for an inexpensive and easy to maintain high- low mix that enables you to do air policing and a minimal amount of air defence and CAS.

Retire or sell all other fighter planes, including Mig-29 and Orao to save money on logistics. The German Mig-29 were too expensive to maintain, I don’t assume the S&M ones are any better.

If you can’t keep the Mig-21 in the air, consider inexpensive and easy to maintain leases like the Gripen.
Then let ten years go by and reconsider your priorities and options. They might be totally different by then.

Originally posted by Aidan
…
In the end, it matters very little. The Government have little or no intention of purchasing any ‘combat’ aircraft for the AC in the short term, we could come up with any number of suggestions, but the basic fact remains, there is no political interest in having a functional Defence Forces.

Theres another point also; because of the geographical location of the country, our neighbours are among the most advanced militaries in the world. Whether we like it or not, because of our close links with them, they form a de facto defensive shield for us. Which is a handy excuse for any government.

Purchasing low end gear like F-5Es or (puke) L-159s would be a little ridiculous (by that logic) when our near neighbours, who have a clear interest in defending us, have a mix of (say) Eurofighters, F3, M2K, Rafale, F-16s and (eventually) F-35s. Our military could bring so little to the party that, in fact, other coutries would probably be better off without our ‘help’ in the short term.

From a practical perspective, this makes a lot of sense. The F-5s would only be a temporary solution, anyway, as they are being phased out soon. Neither Hawk nor L-159 could even fullfill the basic task of air policing, since they are too slow to intercept even aberrant commercial planes.

But on a legal level: How can the government justify their status as a neutral nation with a position like this? If GB, F or the US are ultimately in control of your airspace, you can hardly claim to be neutral.
The same can similarly be said about Austria (and was discussed at length in their media and discussian boards) , but there at least they retain a minimal capability of air policing with the acquisition of the EF and the F-5 bridgegap solution.

Given the fact that plenty of military and commercial trans- atlantic airroutes cross your country, I really wonder how you handle air policing and guarantee that your neutrality is not constantly being violated.

In that context, an presuming that there is no change in Irish defense policy, the best possible medium term future one can hope for is a sustained re-equipment programme, whereby the existing roles of the AC can be met properly; which means both LUH and ML helicopters, more MPA’s and a C-172 replacement (ideally a helicopter).

Well, this sort of procurrment program looks more tailored to a NATO or EU defence participation rather than a “staying neutral” approach.
This would probably make a lot more sense anyway. Is your neutrality debatable at all within Ireland?

Also, can anyone change the thread title? Cos the members and posters of the IMO board are not the Irish Air Corps …

Well, I agree, but I can’t! 😉

Well I was just reading through some of the threads this all is referring to, care for my observations?.
We all (except the webmasters) probably made this experience of entering a forum the first time. I did this especially in an Austrian forum, a country that similarly lacks funding for its air force. Some of my early remarks there might have sounded a little silly too to some that were more familiar with local realities. Nevertheless I was pretty well accepted.
It would have probably been wiser for FTD to enter it with a little more observations and questions before jumping to conclusions and advice.
On the other side there was quite a bit of sarcasm from resident forum members in early posts already, which was not really a nice welcome either. A new viewpoint can also lead to new ideas, even though some might be silly. I remember being laughed at in the Austrian forum for suggesting the second- hand F-5s as bridgegaps. Look what they are getting now.
As to no humor:I can assure that I found some humorous incidents like the Marine- eating shark.

It seems to me that since we all share common interests and similar viewpoints, this could have been sorted out with a couple of personal messages or mediating posts in the forum. No need to expand the audience.
Why not take a step towards eachother, shake hands and try a new start?