TonnycAny other guided missiles integrated with the FA-50, other than the Maverick? Any LDP and/or recon pod integrated? Any ARM missile? What about anti-ship missiles, which would seem to be of prime importance to the Philippines..the payload is respectable, but I’ve never seen any info on any of these other types of weapons or pods integrated. Lack of a BVR missile would make this a very limited air defence fighter..if the Elta 2032 is already on board then the Derby would make ample sense as the BVR missile, if the US has issues releasing the AIM-120 for sales to certain countries.
No to all of the above. It is as sheytanelkebir said. It’s a LIFT/light fighter. Its competition is not the JF-17, but rather the M-346 and BAE Hawk.
In past defense expos KAI had posters saying they will integrate AIM-120, MIL-STD 1760, Sky Shield ECM pod, and LITENING pod. You can find images of such posters on the Internet. However, there has been no news of any testing for those stuff.
I expect that eventually they will integrate those, but not soon. Definitely not this year or next year.
TonnycThey have the standard stuff listed in the Korean Aero product page. No BVR capability. Rumor says that the FCS has BVR capability that only requires a software update to activate, but this is unconfirmed. To my knowledge, so far there is no test of FA-50 firing a BVR capable missile yet. I don’t know Korean though so I may have missed news of such a test.
Fire control radar will be EL/M-2032. The missiles are Sidewinders and Mavericks, although I don’t know the exact version numbers. No AIM-120.
The price includes 2 years of ILS and the initial training. It also includes the equipment needed for lead-in fighter trainer capability. Apparently this is usually taken out since ROKAF doesn’t need them in their FA-50. Armaments cost an additional $100 million or so for several hundred missiles and PGM, although I don’t know the details.
PS: ROKAF is the launch customer for FA-50. Iraq is the first foreign customer, although for some reason they want theirs to be called T-50IQ instead of FA-50. To be frank, I don’t know for sure if theirs are FA-50 or TA-50, but they are definitely armed, and since Iraq is paying over $1 billion for 24, the FA-50 makes the most sense.
TonnycWhatever, man.
TonnycBeat me to it. I was about to post the above.
This bit interests me: “Development and delivery of the Gripen NG avionics will last four years…” Does that mean no Gripen E deliveries for at least another 4 years? If it does, what are SAAB’s chances of landing a contract with any country needing aircraft before 2020?
About as good as their chance with Brazil. Brazil also needs fighters before 2020.
Saab usually offers a ten years lease for countries that needs aircrafts right away. It should be possible to negotiate a shorter term lease depending on a country’s particular needs.
TonnycMy point exactly…it would be moderatly cheap and lite.
I am not convinced about the cheap part. But anyway, compreg wood was used as propeller blades back in WW2. I don’t know how useful this is for you, but this article from 1939 might be interesting. The article might be outdated due to advances in technology, but it was interesting to read anyway.
TonnycI would not require laminated compreg wood to be better than carbon nanotube, but it has to be stronger, lighter, and cheaper (cheaper and one other will do) than aluminum if there’s to be a reason for using it. There are plenty of small air forces who would like to get small (presumably economical!) jet fighters for air policing and reconnaissance.
TonnycYou mean there are Thai JA 39s in a museum? Is it some sort of temporary exhibition or something? How many of them are in a museum?
Sweden donated a Gripen A to the RTAF museum for display back in 2012.
TonnycSaab is working on the T-X with Boeing. Even if Boeing has denied that there is a commonality in platforms, could it be that somewhat, something, will come out of that for the Argentinians ?
It could, but can FAA wait? The T-X doesn’t even have a solid design yet. Between that, computer testing, prototyping, more testing, and so on, it may take 5 years before there’s something for the FAA to order.
But like I said before, it really isn’t a matter of which plane is available, but really a matter of whether the government of Argentina trusts the military enough to fund its purchase. Because seriously, if I were an Argentinian politician, I have no actual incentive to fund it. There’s no external threat. If I’m worried about the narcotrafficantes I can just order a few Super Tucanos from Brazil. Trash-talking the UK about the Falklands Island can be done without any actual air power and in fact it’s probably better that way, because that way there’s no danger of the international community taking it seriously.
TonnycCan the planned Brazilian build Gripen NG be builded without UK’s IP and components ? Because if Argentine still hoping for that, ommiting UK’s IP and components seems the only answered. However whether this is possible or affordable is another questions. Seems omitting UK’s part can turned out to be redesigning Gripen to completely new variance. I’m highly doubted Brazil wanted to do that for simply creating variance that can be supplied to Argentina.
Gripen NG can be built without UK IP and components. Those components can be bought somewhere else or developed in either Sweden or Brazil. The problem isn’t that. The problem is who’s going to pay for the extra cost. It’s not going to be SAAB or Sweden, because they are fine with using UK components. Brazil is planning to develop some domestic components, but they have nothing against UK either, so they will proceed at their pace and at their own discretion. E.g., the Brazilian wide screen display replaces the Swedish three-screen display, not some UK component.
If Argentina wants a Gripen without UK IP and components, it will have to pay the cost of development and production. That’s very unlikely. I doubt they have the money and political will to do so in the immediate future. Twenty years from now, who knows. But five years from now? No way.
TonnycBecause the military does stuff in space?
By that criteria all space news belongs in this subforum. I am sure Sainul Abid will be happy to start copy-pasting any space news here.
TonnycThis belongs to modern military aviation because?
TonnycJ-10B apparently has a AESA on it
That’s not exactly what this thread has in mind. We are talking about retrofitting AESA radar into older model aircraft. J-10B is a new model aircraft. It’s the same reason why we are not talking about the AESA radar in the F-16 block 60 in this thread. Now, if you are saying that the J-10B AESA radar can be put into the J-7, or at least that the J-10B AESA radar has been retrofitted into J-10A, then that would be relevant for this thread.
TonnycI actually don’t see why the U.S. won’t allow Saudi Arabia to sell their F-5 Tiger II to Argentina. If it was F-15, maybe, but F-5 is, uh, obsolete. The F-5 Tiger II will allow Argentina to maintain their current strength and despite what I said about BVR weapons, the U.S. can simply ensure Argentina can’t get any modern BVR missiles that the F-5 Tiger II can use. Limit it to Sidewinders, and the Argentina will have an air force capable of policing its airspace but not be a threat to the Falkland Islands.
Using Russian or Chinese hardware will sidestep that particular issue, but really our speculation here purposely avoid the boring and yet the all important issue.
The main obstacle for Argentina’s Air Force modernization is not any outside actor. It’s Argentina itself. It is not even their current economic trouble. There was a period last decade where Argentina was booming, and yet their defense was not improved at all. No, the problem is their own policy of making sure the military stays weak because they distrust their own military. Argentina’s government might feel the distrust is justified given its past, but as long as the Argentinian government distrusts their own military, no significant improvement will happen. This is regardless of what Russia and China have to offer.
TonnycI’m thinking, even with an E-2 in support, the F-5’s would find Typhoons nearly impossible to engage.
But the idea behind F-5 for Argentina is not to engage Typhoons. It is to maintain a minimal fast jet capability so that in the future when they get more capable aircrafts they don’t have to start from scratch. E.g., Philippine Air Force having to start over after a decade of no fast jet capability. While hardline Argentinians may want something with the potential of defeating Typhoons, that’s something that is nice to have but is not actually needed.
Still, upgraded F-5 with BVR capability is a threat. AEW&C aircraft presumably will detect the Typhoons first and a squadron of F-5 guided by said aircraft might be able to fire their BVR missiles first. While BVR missiles are not a sure-win button, it is still a threat that must be taken seriously.
Note that the above scenario though you can easily substitute Chinese or Russian aircrafts for the F-5. I never discounted the possibility of Argentina buying Russian hardware. What I rejected is Daily Express’ irresponsible gossip that such a deal already happened.
TonnycI can’t believe people still take this Su-24 thing seriously.
http://lanacion.com.ar/1755991-aviones-por-comida-rossi-dijo-no-al-trueque-con-rusia
http://www.aviacionargentina.net/foros/fuerza-aerea-argentina.4/9824-desmentida-sobre-el-su-24-para-la-argentina.html
Sign In
