wilhelmThanks Buitreaux for the insights.
A couple of things in connection with the topic leap out at me.
The very interesting thing is the public interest, at least by a governmental minister, in the J-20. This would probably, in developed form, be a handy long-ranged platform speculated about in this thread.
Was this a serious enquiry, Buitreaux?
A joint MPA or AWACS type with Brazil makes perfect sense, seeing as they produce or are developing suitable platforms for these roles.
Ditto submarine development. At one stage, the submarine programme in Argentina was developing coherently and nicely, until the withdrawing of funding scuppered it.
The 2 incomplete Argentine built TR1700 hulls have been cannabilised for spares for the 2 German built in-service vessels, but recently a feasibility study was carried out to see whether the most advanced of these could be completed. I’m not sure what the result was.
These are some of the most impressive SSK’s ever produced, with a very high underwater speed approaching that of some SSN’s, albeit for shorter periods obviously.
The fascinating thing is that these subs, perhaps with a slight stretch, would be a very good platform for a SSN. Indeed, there was a programme I believe that was to build an SSN version, and I believe that it’s unique design, for an SSK, had this in mind from the beginning.
Brazil is on a similar path, building their Type 209 fleet under licence, with the last of class, the Tikuna being an improved variant.
They are buying Scorpenes from France, and along with this comes some technology purchase for their long standing SSN requirement.
The latest news on this is that construction on Brazils SSN will begin in 2 years time, 2015.
Submarines are definitely an area where Brazil and Argentina could and should co-operate.
They are chasing the same thing, after all.
wilhelmThe missile seems to be called B-Darter, a designation I’d never heard of before.
wilhelmA bit more information on various South African PGM’s and AAM’s, including the Umbani and Raptor.
wilhelmResurrecting this thread, I stumbled upon this article from about a year ago.
The A-Darter is now rapidly approaching qualification. Integration of the AAM onto the Hawk fighter-trainer is proceeding in parallel. The SAAF will receive training missiles and operational capability from 2013 on. There are also plans and proposals to develop further versions of the A-Darter, such as an A-Darter Light, an A-Darter Extended Range, and an A-Darter ASM, as well as projects to continue the development of the current missile to create an A-Darter Mark (Mk) 2 and later an A-Darter Mk 3.
In addition to the A-Darter, the company has a project to develop a new radar-guided, beyond-visual-range AAM (BVRAAM), currently known as the B-Darter. This will be based on ten years of investment since the deployment of South Africa’s last indigenous BVRAAM, the V4.
Central to this project has been the development of powerful radar technology compact enough to fit into the airframe of a BVRAAM. (Denel Dynamics has confirmed that this technology will be directly employed for the seeker head of the radar-guided version of the Umkhonto.)
“We are ready to produce a BVRAAM demonstrator,” affirms Wilson. “But we need an investment partner for full-scale industrial development, like on the A-Darter. At home, we need government support and a user requirement from the SAAF.”
The proposed B-Darter would probably have a maximum range greater than 80 km. “Our target is to be in the middle of the market –medium range and medium cost,” she asserts.
The rest of the article in the link is quite interesting about current products, and what is in the pipeline.
It appears from this that the Umkhonto-R SAM, which will be radar guided, will share the same seeker family as the BVRAAM. It appears as if quite a lot of work has gone into the missile.
One hopes that Brazil will look at joining the project, as they’ve done with the A-Darter.
wilhelmWilhelm I tried to over look posts 106 and 131 as I feel in the main you have some good stuff to say but I have to say I am NOT HAPPY with being accused of being someone I am not. At all times and in all of my posts I have tried to stay on topic and give input I am always happy to take others opinions as with Fedaykin’s on the type 45 destroyer post 95 however these 2 post of yours are just a cheap shot with no balls I am more than happy for you to point out the untruth in my post 93 and take it from there.
As I have said any money Argentina spends would be best put to uses picking the best 3 destroyer’s 6 corvettes and 4 patrol boats and upgrade them the remaining destroyer 3 corvettes and 2 patrol bout would be run in to ground and paid off next an interim purchase of upgraded Mirage F-1’s would give the air force a highly capable multi role interceptor for air defence and anti shipping. But most of all the men and women of there armed forces need training that means time at sea for the navy better aircraft and time in the air for its pilot and multi force exercises to tie them all together
Apologies Tempest.
It’s just that you came over rather jingoistically in the post, in a manner that was a carbon copy of a previous poster JonJames.
As you can see from other posters, he is remembered for this, and this alone.
If you’re not him, I apologise.
wilhelmWhat about a scenario for the political background which would allow increased military spending? At present, Argentina has a government which is very reluctant to give the armed forces money. If that changed, increased military spending becomes more likely. So, here goes:
Increasing discontent over economic woes lead to more of the public disorder seen recently, to the point where Cristina is forced out, as was Fernando de la Rua in 2001.
A new coalition announces that it will clean up the statistical office, reverse expropriations, loosen the import controls that have been disrupting industry, & end the decay of infrastructure. It starts very discreet negotiations with the vulture funds, & tells the world that it intends to return to the capital markets as soon as possible, though it will take some time.
The armed forces are told that the national embarrassment of decrepit forces that can’t even patrol national airspace will end, but they’ll have to scale back their ambitions & accept some second hand equipment. For example, the new defence minister tells the air force “It’s your choice. Second hand fighters modernised in Argentina with foreign help, or nothing. Accept, & we can talk about something better as soon as there’s money.” The generals give in, & negotiations start for used Mirage F1s as an interim fighter, & a modernisation package (NB. the F2000 isn’t the only option) to maximise their abilities. Meanwhile, money is made available for overhauls of A-4ARs & other unserviceable equipment, refurbishment of barracks, training, fuel, etc., to enable the forces to start getting the equipment they have working, & their personnel able to operate it effectively. This money is almost all spent in Argentina, & generates employment, so there is little objection.
This takes us up to the end of 2013. What might happen next? Once existing aircraft (AFVs, ships, etc.) are being overhauled, money is there to operate them & for training, infrastructure is being restored, & an interim Mirage III replacement is on the way, what could come next? What domestic programmes could benefit from money, for example?
Swerve’s post got me thinking.
Assuming a level of funding in the scenario posted above, and thinking about wider regional co-operation, and also looking at India’s Tejas programme.
India have developed fighters before, but allowed lapses between programmes to waste away hard-gotten skills.
Does Brazil have any programme to follow on the AMX? Surely they do not want those skills gained in that programme to waste away? I’m not sure all of it can be maintained with civil programmes via EMBRAER.
Brazil have put the V-3 Darter seeker on their indigineous AAM, and have bought into the A-Darter. They have an indigineous radar for the AMX.
I’m sure they would want a follow-up to the AMX and MB-326.
This might be an opportunity for Argentine collaboration in such a venture.
Argentina did have an indigineous fighter programme in the late 1980’s, that was to be realised with German and US help. I don’t think this got very far though.
Perhaps a follow on from the AMX would be fruitful, under such a scenario? It would make sense for Brazil certainly, for industrial purposes.
Such a jet need not be cutting edge. Something akin to the Korean KAI T-50 is what I’m thinking.
It would not necessarily be Brazil’s or Argentina’s premier fighter, but would be more geared to the multi-role environment, with the strike role more prevalent. In other words, something to replace the AMX and A-4 Skyhawk, but more capable.
There may be a local market for 150 such planes, excuding exports otside the 2 countries and would enable a smaller amount of “Bleeding Edge” fighters to be purchased.
And it would kickstart one, and maintain the others domestic military jet industry.
I know that this would be something dependant on the scenario as given by Swerve, correct levels of funding, and a timeframe post 2020.
wilhelmLeaving aside those who can’t contain their emotions, thus derailing the thread, are US weapons really an option for Argentina?
Sure they’ve supplied A-4 Skyhawks, and been involved in the Pampa jet trainer earlier, but these were not modern, cutting-edge platforms.
I suspect that France, with it’s relatively secure supply of parts devolved from politics more than other countries, would be attractive just like in the past.
As mentioned, the fact that Russia and China are now openly touting their wares, as opposed to before, when the restrictions from the Monroe Doctrine had it’s effect.
I suspect this will make things interesting.
Not that these platforms will necessarily be supplied, but the J-20 and PAK-FA would be ideal, from what we know of them so far, and if money was obviously no object.
wilhelmI understand from your posts that you’re a supporter of the dim-witted Kirchner then. No wonder you got upset when I quite rightly called her out as a nut case.
And I can’t work out why you think i’ve insulted Argentine posters on this forum, care to show me? Actually don’t bother as i’m not interested enough to care what you perceive an insult to Argentine posters on this board is, if a mod takes up the issue that’s fine but you’re are not in any positon to act as judge and jury on this forum therefor I will set you to ignore and avoid your snobbish posts.
The playground accusation of you’re either with me or against me.
How interesting.
You understand wrong.
I’m neither Argentinian nor a Kirchner supporter.
Please contribute something of substance to the thread, and leave the insults out of it please.
wilhelmAlthough technically off-topic I feel that madrats comment is bang on.
It was an open secret when I served (briefly and a long time ago) that there was oil by them there islands and that was the real reason for the conflict (that and an external threat suited UK domestic politics just as much as it did Argentinian)
It is the right thing IMMOO to respect the islanders right to self determination but I am afraid that this in and of itself would be insufficient reason for uk to do so.
FI is not poor. The corporation which runs does (or did: again I am speaking from old info) pay inhabitants rather than take taxes.
How many hours left on Spanish and Canadian f18s? With two engines, probe ifr and bvr these might suit Argentina better than f16s.
‘Tis true what you say.
Resources have always been the governing factor in almost any conflict since Sumer and Elam decided to fight in the first written record of warfare, back about 5700 years ago.
Of course, cemetry 117 in Egypt shows many skeletons with arrowheads in them, dating from an event thought to be 14 000 years ago.
Tallheim Death Pit in Germany shows something similar, albeit with the fact that the people there were bound and clubbed on the left side of the head.
I guess we could safely assume this was about resources too.
On topic, I recall the original Hornet was also not the longest legged fighter, hence the move to the Super Hornet and it’s vastly increased fuel capacity. I stand under correction here.
The probe is a game changer, admittedly.
wilhelmFunny that because i’d heard you were infact an yet another incarnation of this ‘Jon James’ fellow, perhaps we should all avoid you…?
Or, on the other hand certain posters could act like adults and not children for a change and stop this petty, paranoid nonsense whereby they accuse people of being people they are not. Which is the better option?
Belethor.
The conversation has remained cordial.
Except for your good self, and Tempest.
Tempest appears as if he still reads the Boys Own Annual, and so can be forgiven perhaps, and excused.
You seem an erudite type though.
You might like to take your own advice and drop the name calling and petty insults. Your post number 126 is an illustration of the type of emotional outburst that leads threads astray.
There are Argentine posters on the forum, who have so far conducted themselves in an exemplary manner.
wilhelmIt is far more expensive to regain a capability when you’ve lost it.
A submarine force is very cheap for what it brings to the table.
wilhelmThobbes, you need to look at the reasons behind previous purchases.
The Monroe Doctrine was in place until the end of the Cold War.
Apart from that, and with the exception of one or two Carribbean or Central American countries, most of South America was anti-communist.
The above is why weapons purchases were the way they were up until recently.
Now though, you have Russia, China and Europe bidding.
Brazil is now the 6th largest economy on the planet, having overtaken Britain, and will probably overtake France soon for 5th place.
I suspect you may find that the historical trend no longer applies.
wilhelmSwerve, your scenario makes sense, and echo’s what I’ve been saying.
Working with the scenario, Argentina should go for a cheap, interim, but relatively immediate solution, with an eye on perhaps a newly built, more capable fighter by around 2020.
The immediate solution is the fact that their supersonic interception capabilities are almost at an end, due to a chronically aged fleet of interceptors.
With all the will in the world, an A-4 Skyhawk has barely 100km/h over a Boeing 707 or 727, to put it into context as an interceptor.
Domestically, I can see the IA 63 Pampa (FMA, now FAdeA, seems to be wholly back in Argentine hands) as an immediate beneficiary to such a programme, with perhaps a follow-on order of a more powerful, developed variant, followed by the original airframes being cycled through a programme to upgrade them to the same standard.
FAdeA could carry on licence producing the Z-11 helicopter. This would allow them to replace or complement:
3 different AirForce types, the MD500, Hughes369/OH-6, and SA-315B Lama.
1 Navy type, the Eurocopter Fennec, an extremely similar helicopter.
4 different Army types, Bell 205, Bell 206, SA315 Lama, Agusta A109.
That’s 45 airframes right there, but with the rebuilding scenario, that could easily morph into around 100 or more. Comments passed at the announcement of Z-11 production in Argentina was a stated aim of more indiginisation and standardisation for better self-reliance than at present.
One would also think that re-inventing the wheel is not clever, so you’d think that some sort of programme with their fellow Mercosur partners, in particular Brazil, would be priority. They could avoid redundant programmes, develope niches of expertise, and perhaps block-buy together for better purchasing power.
Brazil and Argentina have enjoyed cordial relations for decades, are partners in Mercosur(indeed, were the main instigators), and have strong co-operation in the military sphere.
It is instructive to note that, whilst remaining passive during the Falklands conflict, the Brazilian govt did state it was in agreement with Argentina in principal.
This closeness should be developed and nurtured, so that Argentina could benefit from Brazilian systems, and perhaps carve out niche areas for itself.
wilhelmThe solutions have been posted ad nauseum. Second-hand Mirage 2000’s or something from China (JF-17) is what the FAA will wind-up with in the end. The possibility of obtaining some surplus F-16’s from Portugal or other NATO countries is there as well. I’d like to see the FAA with some F-16’s. Malvinas or not, to be anything close to a potent force, the FAA needs newer equipment than what it currently has flying.
Are these the solutions though?
I can see them being so for an interim buy to keep pilots current, but maybe not for what is actually required operationally.
All are relatively shortranged jets.
The F-16 will either have to have tankers equipped with a boom, or have that Carts thing installed.
Can’t see either happening.
I have seen displays of an aerial refuelling probe that is said to be for the JF-17, but have never seen an actual JF-17 equipped with one.
From what I can make out, although the Mirage 2000 has many huge advantages over the Mirage III, it’s range isn’t exactly one of them.
It at least has a refuelling probe currently.
wilhelmWhy are the mods allowing such an off-topic thread to persist? There is very little ‘Modern Military Aviation’ being discussed in this thread, if any.
More importantly, why is everyone taking the bait of ‘J-31 Burrito’ (aka ‘J-31 Penguin’, aka ‘Italy’, aka ‘J-20 Hotdog’), who always starts these provocative topics that have little to do with military aviation. And why are the mods allowing this clown to troll and flame with multiple usernames?
I agree, although in almost every one of my posts, as others too have done, there has been an element of trying to keep to the topic.
How about you have a go with some analysis of their needs?
Sign In
