m.ileduetsThanks! It’s a good one, too.
I didn’t mean this picture, though. There once were a couple of pictures, at least one of them showing a Tiger passing under a bridge right after the landing.
m.ileduetsWell, the Falkland conflict was really the end of expansionist dreams involving aircraft carriers, wasn’t it.
A citation from “Scramble” concerning this:
“…By the early eighties relatively modern types were operated such as the A-4Q Skyhawk, MB326GB, MB339AA, and Dassault Super Etendard jet aircraft alongside Lynx Mk.23, SA330 Puma, and Sikorsky S-61 helicopters. The successor to the first carrier had arrived in 1969 as well in the shape of the former Royal Netherlands Navy HrMs Karel Doorman named ARA 25 de Mayo in Argentinean naval service. However, this material was no longer solely used for the defence of the country but for offensive actions also. In April 1982 the Malvinas campaign was started entailing the capture of the Falkland Islands controlled by Britain. Although this operation initially succeeded in its aim, the ensuing war led to a defeat and British recapture of the islands capturing and destroying many airframes. The Argentinean navy proved to be capable of striking the British forces as well, the sinking of the HMS Sheffield by Super Etendards using AM39 Exocet missiles is the prime example of this. However, the Argentinean forces as a whole did not succeed in warding of the British power projection that was achieved with great effort on their part (taking into account the long distance to homeland Britain).
The aftermath of the Malvinas conflict brought about political changes. But with a deteriorating economic situation this did not lead to immediate alleviation of the needs of the naval air arm. Acquisitions late last century enhanced the capabilities of the navy somewhat with were AS555 and UH-1H helicopters, Beech 200 Petrel and P-3B Orion patrol aircraft being delivered. Compared to its illustrious history the COAN today is a relatively modest force aimed at defence and upholding of international agreements. The Argentinean navy is very active in various exercises with other South American navies and US Forces. But lacking an aircraft carrier of its own and with no replacement for its main jet fighters imminent, the COAN is no longer in the forefront of Latino naval aviation a status it would deserve to have based on its rich history.”
This about says it all.
They’d better focus on a minimal home defence strategy and try save some money to reduce their debt instead of trying to “keep up with the Joneses”.
m.ileduetsDefinitely negative, unless they want to claim the Malvinas again.
They are in much bigger need of cash at the moment, given their recent bancruptcy. New expensive military hardware seems out of the question to me.
m.ileduetsOriginally posted by Coach
The swiss airforce had even practiced the use of highway WITH bridges, it just depends where on the used 2-3 km they lie.The pilots where realy concerned about that and had first to get used to this situation by having some sort of (much softer…) ribbons tied over the runway of their base, in the same position in distance and height as on the highway.
A couple of years ago there were some pictures on the Swiss Army website on this manouvre. Unfortunately they don’t seem to be available anymore. It realy looked a little scary… and now there are people talking about landing into a tunnel. Good luck!
m.ileduetsWell, to start with, you can’t avoid political considerations to start with since they are important for your threat analysis.
With the given budget, I’d make sure I get along well with my neighbours. Preferably join a defensive pact.
I’d buy a dozen C-130s to be well equiped for UN-mandated peace enforcement and humanitarian aid enterprise.
30 EC-135 and 20 NH-90 should do to be ready for forest fires, floodings, avalanches and the like.
For air policing and the odd chance of defence I’d acquire 36 (30/6) Gripens (C/D).
12 PC-21 should do for training.
m.ileduetsYou guys just love flame wars, don’t you? Why start a threat with a topic so far off like this? Why answer in such a predictable manner? Come on. There are better ways to take care of your steroids…
m.ileduetsWell, even Switzerland used highways as airstrips with Mirage IIIs and F-5Es. I’m sure lots of airforces are in fact capable of it. It doesn’t take a lot to do that, just a straight bit without bridges and removable guide rails.
With an airplane like the Gripen it’s just a lot easier: No need for a big maintanance crew, it can handle short, narrow strips (9x800m) and rough pavement. It’s just a whole concept in Sweden that includes easy maintenance with a small and mobile crew, and simple, quick turnover and repairs.
m.ileduetsIndeed Gunston/Spick had survivability in a nuclear war in Europe in mind when promoting their STOL “solution”. But I think it still holds some advantages today in a situation in which a small nation has to defend itself against a superior agressor (and wants to rely on its airforce).
Instead of concentrating the assets in a few heavy fortified places which can hardly be defended nevertheless, it makes clearly more sense to spread them out.
Airport runways will always be first priority and a rather easy target for air strikes. Even if the proposed bunkers without runways would work, they’d probably be detected and destroyed soon.
There are disadvantages to the “Swedish” model, too though. For example it would probably be more vulnerable to sabotage. So if the enemy is more of an “internal kind”, it might be better to concentrate and dig in.
m.ileduetsUnderground facilities just have the disadvantage that sooner or later the plane has to get out of the ground to get airborne.
Here in Switzerland these exits are partialy protected from up front by earthen dams. But they are still vulnerable to precision weapons. The runways are another issue. They can be repaired quickly, but nevertheless the hours it takes might be crucial.
Doesn’t it make a lot more sense to do it the “Swedish” way by using even small roads as airstrips? The mobile ground support crew can switch positions after each landing and thus avoid detection and destruction. But I guess it takes special planes like the Gripen or Harrier to use this sort of concept. Bill Gunston and Mike Spick pointed out this problem in the 80-ies already, as far as I can remember.
m.ileduetsOriginally posted by glitter
that article is a bit old, isn’t it ?Anyway, I find the american behaviour a bit weird.
FRom a political point of view (the link of the first post) Washington seems to be interested by the brasilian deal.
On the industrial one, theirs offers have been jokes, so ?
It’s a little old, but with the Brazilian fighter deal still pending, it’s still of interest. Their choice will be interesting to analyze. Somehow I can’t see Lula chosing an US- product. I don’t think he wants to depend on the US for spares. Out of political considerations a deal with the French seems more likely.
m.ileduetsThe usual arms dealer’s dilemma: If the US doesn’t sell AMRAAMs, Brazil can still obtain BVR- capabilities with Micas from France or Adders from Russia.
If they relly wanted to avoid it, the USA would either have to pressure the country hard into buying less capable US-gear, obtain a monopoly on BVR-missiles or seek an international agreement banning the sale of such weapons to developing nations. All things I really don’t see coming…
So they might just drop principles and try to make good money out of it.
m.ileduetsBAE and Finmeccanica joint venture?
Well, I’m glad to be contributing to a growing friendship
😀
Back to the topic. It’s Guardian news, so some might not give it much attention, but there might be relevant details hidden nevertheless:
1-18-2004
Italian aerospace and defence group Finmeccanica is considering plans for a joint venture with BAE Systems to combine their Hawk and Aermacchi jet trainer programmes, industry sources said yesterday.
The Italian firm, through its Alenia aeronautics division, won backing within the Treasury last year for its low-cost plan to equip the RAF with its prototype M346 trainer, but the cabinet opted to award an £800m contract to BAE for up to 44 Hawk jets, saving more than 2,000 jobs at its Brough plant in East Yorkshire.
It is understood that Pier Francesco Guarguaglini, Finmeccanica’s chief executive, who is keen to expand links with BAE, has discussed the idea of a joint venture with British executives.
The two have a 50-50 joint venture in defence electronics, Alenia Marconi Systems, and, with European group Eads, in missiles company MBDA. The Italians also own half of the AgustaWestland helicopter business with GKN.
BAE, which last year won a further £1bn contract to supply India with up to 66 Hawks and sees an export market of about 500 for the jet trainer, is sceptical about the Italian approach.
Sources point out that the 12-nation Eurotrainer programme – for which Finmeccanica proposed the M346 – has virtually collapsed.
Finmeccanica is understood to be keen to cement ties with BAE partly because of the British firm’s strong presence in the lucrative US defence market. Mr Guarguaglini, who is raising cash by selling non-core assets, has said he wants to buy US companies with sales of $200m to $700m (£400m).
…
© Guardian Newspapers Limited
link
Interesting, isn’t it? Even though BAE is sceptical at the moment, a cooperation with group Finmeccanica could be interesting on the long run since the Hawk is admittedly getting a little old. Why not join efforts?
Any more news on the alleged end of Eurotraining?
m.ileduetsWell, frankly I’m sort of glad that most European countries lack the sort of “vision” that lead to the current US administration’s foreign- and defence policy. I prefer a grain af realism.
But to get back to the EF’s role in NATO and a European defence force. As far as I know NATO was first created as a defenisve organization in which countries assured assistence to eachother in case of an aggression. In such a constelation the (Italian) EF will do it’s job perfectly. It can reach any part of Europe within reasonable time. No need to emphasize an offensiv potential with strategic transport capabilities. This is good for US-style interventionalism, not anything we’re really that interested in here.
m.ileduetsThis sounds a little more reasonable. Keep the M-346 cheap, one still might want to improve it’s A2G capabilities a little to emphase it’s secondary role as a light attack and CAS aircraft. It can start from unpaved runways after all.
Is competition really going to be that stiff in this specific sector? The Mig-AT is seriously hurt by not being the chosen Russian trainer, and this against the M-346 twin. The remarks come from German Suchoi afficionados and should be taken with a grain of salt, but I still think they don’t shed a good light on the AT-project. Text on Mig-AT on Suchoi homepage .
The L-159 doesn’t really seem to take off either with the Czech Republik trying to sell more than half the batch they ordered originally.
A/T-50 and Mako are probably going to be considerably more expensive and belong into a different category in a way, being clearly supersonic aircrafts with BVR capabilities.
Even though the Hawk still scored with the British, it seems to me that it’s past its prime. The decision was probably based more on protectionist considerations, which won’t help with other potential customers. (As a British reader, you might not like this last remarks, I know).
Remains the YAK twin sister. They should probably find a way to split the market among themselves, with YAK marketing it in Eastern Europe and Asia and Aermacchi going for Western Europe and Latin America, given their ties with Embraer.
m.ileduetsLeaving the EF- issue aside (It’s clearly a different category), your statements concerning the M-346’s chances in the “light” market clearly holds some truth.
Yet I think that just like with its YAK twin sister it’s better positioned to perform the light attack role. It’s just a little too slow for a fighter jet. It won’t be able to compete against T-50, LCA, Gripen, Mako and the like in this role.
As a trainer and light attack aircraft it has the potential to replace quite a few ageing models like the Hawk, Alpha Jet, SAAB 105, Albatross, MB-339 or even A-4 and AMX. Its inofficial price tag of 15 Mio. (Dollars?) would make it a good deal, it seems to me.
Sign In
