Where Is The Western JF 17?

[Ananda]

Speaking on that front it makes sense to note that, LCA itself has quiet a few western components, american engine, french-israeli+indian avionics, and israeli radar.

American engine is for First Batch of LCA. Indian still hoping to get Kaveri powered the bulk of LCA later on. But I agree that LCA will have substantial Western+Israeli system and sub system. However I believe F/A-50 will have more Western system, thus in my opinion it can be appropriate to call F/A-50 as Western representative for 21st century Light Fighter class (in which I believe JF-17 and LCA included).

Well unless BAe can build more Hawk 200 in the Future, since AMX seems going nowhere except some remnants that continue being updated by Italian and Brazil.

 

[NICO]

I don't see anybody buying Hawk or AMX in the near to long term future, especially in the light fighter role. They are outdated and just don't have the performance you see in a F/A50 or M346 which are newer designs with plenty of growth in front of them. You are also starting to see countries require fly by wire and other high performance items even in training jets so those 2 designs are pretty much done for.

I guess what will replace F5s and the like will be JF17 for countries allied/close to China or on a western ban list. Second hand F16s will be the new F5 in this era with countries wanting something new will go towards F/A50 or M346 or YAK. Used Mirage 2000s from FAF I suspect will have second lives with foreign air forces. Gripen is still pretty expensive to buy although probably relatively cheap to operate compared to F-series or Euros fighters. Still very sophisticated piece of kit for a lot of countries and plenty of American content to preclude easy and unfettered export.

 

[swerve]

AMX has been out of production for years. Italy & Brazil are updating some of those in service to extend their lives. That's it: there'll never be any more.

Hawk is still in production, but it looks as if production may soon end in the UK, & continue in India - as long as the IAF wants more Hawks.

 

[Berkut]

This may sound silly... But can a piston engined fighter offer front line capability at say the level of the YF 17.
Obviously speed will never be comparable.... but what about the rest?
Super Tucano or Texan vs YF 17?
Fantacy???

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

This may sound silly... But can a piston engined fighter offer front line capability at say the level of the YF 17.
Obviously speed will never be comparable.... but what about the rest?
Super Tucano or Texan vs YF 17?
Fantacy???

Skyraiders provided comparable CAS & strike capability to their faster peers in the 60's. But with teh extra weight and sophistication of modern PGM's (read targeting pods) i'm not so sure you could emulate a JF-17.

p.s. I'm in queenstown and met someone from gore the other day. Whats it like down there? Has the snow melted yet?

 

[ngatimozart]

This may sound silly... But can a piston engined fighter offer front line capability at say the level of the YF 17.
Obviously speed will never be comparable.... but what about the rest?
Super Tucano or Texan vs YF 17?
Fantacy???

Just being pedantic but the Tucano / Texan is turbo prop which is what most military basic training aircraft today are. Reason being allows for easier conversion to modern helos, transports, fast jets etc.

 

[Feanor]

Apart from force integration problems with Australia who should deny it to them?

They are a souvereign country and not even part of NATO. They already ditched their fast movers without anybody screaming bloody murder I doubt a buy of any kind of fighter will raise serious objections.

Their own political orientation would deny it to them.

 

[exported_kiwi]

Im afraid that NZ will only end up buying some fast movers when they are offered the deal of the century. Example. Lease to buy or a donation etc etc.

As for NZ buying chinese? Its possible? But there are to many F 16s parked up for a quick trade deal that the states could use to get cushy with NZ.

Still cant go wrong with the 16 as it seems to be more like a Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution, if you get my drift.

Didn't we already get the deal of the century under the Shipley gov't foe the lease of 28 F-16's. Then that horrible Clark knocked it down and we lost it. The next deal of the century may not come and if it does, it'll have to be free. Donations are made to charities, and NZ isn't in need of that, but we can have some upgraded surplus USAF aircraft given to us as a gift.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Didn't we already get the deal of the century under the Shipley gov't foe the lease of 28 F-16's. Then that horrible Clark knocked it down and we lost it. The next deal of the century may not come and if it does, it'll have to be free. Donations are made to charities, and NZ isn't in need of that, but we can have some upgraded surplus USAF aircraft given to us as a gift.

They were super, duper cheap IIRC. Don't think there will be another mix of capability, supportability, affordability and development path like that again. It was a big call disbanding the combat air arm, one that shouldn't have been taken lightly.

 

[Ananda]

This may sound silly... But can a piston engined fighter offer front line capability at say the level of the YF 17.
Obviously speed will never be comparable.... but what about the rest?
Super Tucano or Texan vs YF 17?
Fantacy???

Good god, why ?
I my self until now have really hard time to understand the reasoning for TNI-AU to insist having Turboprop COIN Fighter replacing OV-10. The Super Tucano they end up as the replacement is in my opinion no better than Vietnam era OV-10 (save for better electronics and more efficient engine). If COIN still the problem it's better for us to increase the number of MI-35 in the inventory or get more UAV. Well they do still add MI-35 and Introducing UAV but only in limited number due the money must be divided with Super Tucano procurement.

Just to made a point, that if COIN can be handle better now this days by Chopper Gunship and UAV, why bother with Turboprop fighter anymore except for Trainers. After all COIN in the only area left for them.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Their own political orientation would deny it to them.

Force integration would be a serious issue. Australian and NZ military's share a very close relationship and both are doctrinally committed to operating in coalition during any regional conflict. In essence in any regional conflict RNZAF would probably be operating from RAAF bases, and if we couldn't support them there wouldn't be much utility in deploying them.

 

[ngatimozart]

They were super, duper cheap IIRC. Don't think there will be another mix of capability, supportability, affordability and development path like that again. It was a big call disbanding the combat air arm, one that shouldn't have been taken lightly.

Unfortunately it was to all appearances taken lightly. It was an ideological driven decision made unilaterally by a Prime Minister in the wake of the 1985 nuclear legislation.

 

[ngatimozart]

Defense acquisitions are generally made based on immediate or forseen needs. "It's shiny, I want it," simply isn't a sensible way to go about building a defense force. New Zealand simply doesn't face a credible threat to its territory, hence the reason it ditched its A-4s in the first place and is unlikely to acquire fast jets in the immediate future.

Just as importantly, a nation's foreign and domestic policy shapes what it buys. As a small, relatively doveish country, New Zealand isn't actively waging war (beyond a small ISAF contribution) and it is unlikely to fight a major conflict for the foreseeable future. Other members more knowledgeable on the region are welcome to correct me, but that's my general impression of NZ.

In New Zealand's case, uying fast jets, training air and groundcrews, integrating hardware, and maintaining them is a waste of resources that would be better used elsewhere. For this reason, we're unlikely to ever see any more fast movers with kiwi roundels.

At present NZDF personnel are deployed in Afghanistan, Timor- Leste, Solomon Islands, Egypt, Middle East, Sudan, Iraq, Arabian Gulf, South Korea, and Antarctica. For the Middle east I would presume that includes the MFO in the Sinai (which we have been a part since the start in 1981) and Lebanon with the UN. We were in Iraq - Iran from the end of the Iraq - Iran war until probably the first gulf war with the UN having transport aircraft based in Iran (Hawker Siddley Andovers).

The country is not so much dovish as the population went anti US after the US reaction to the nuclear legislation in 1985. The thing was that the legislation per se didn't have wide public support. The reason the Labour government got voted in was a protest against the dictatorial policies of the incumbent national government under Muldoon. When Langes Labour government took over in 1984 the country was an economic basket case so massive economic and social reforms were undertaken literally overnight. The labour government was able to pass the nuclear legislation because it had a majority in parliament under the old first past the post electoral system. The US threw a hissy fit over the legislation and instead of publicly decrying it and letting the dust settle the, then US Sec State & Sec Defence, worried the issue like a dog worries a bone. If they had let the dust settle accommodations could have been reached and everybodies political face saved. What the continued US reaction did was ensure that the NZ public did end up supporting the legislation and today no party would countenance changing that legislation, because it would be political suicide. The NZ public saw NZ being bullied by the USG and we just dug in.

I think outside of Australasia (Australia & NZ) and the Pacific Islands some people forget that Kiwis have a very proud and long fighting heritage. The non Maori side are made up of pakeha (non Maori) - English, Scots, Irish & Welsh plus the new wave of immigrants. The Scots, Irish & Welsh are especially well known for their fiery tempers and fighting abilities. The Maori are a warrior people and before the pakeha missionaries arrived here in the 19th Century, inter and intra tribal warfare was common especially after Maori gained access to muskets. In those days after the battle the victors would have a large feast dining on the vanquished. Combat rations, because they couldn't carry a lot of food with them and the NZ bush didn't / doesn't have an abundance of edible plants. Nowadays that aggression is either funnelled into the armed forces, sport or through cultural competitions. NZ has fought in wars from the Boer war in South Africa both World wars, Korea, Malaya, Borneo, Vietnam, Afghanistan plus numerous peace keeping roles. So just a bit of background info.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I think outside of Australasia (Australia & NZ) and the Pacific Islands some people forget that Kiwis have a very proud and long fighting heritage.

Mate there'd be no ANZAC without NZ!

Additionally I think people further a field have this idea of NZ as a nice, quiet out of the way place with no need for a military and when they read things like the RNZAF losing its fast movers it seems to fit within the stereotype. But when you consider some historical facts like NZ was the first nation to declare war on Germany in 1939 (the US dint enter the war until it was pushed in 41) and was involved in WW1 three years before the US you wonder why people think the way they do.

 

[Swampfox157]

The Middle Earth needs to satisfy the hunger of 'Security Needs'.

Wait...what? You do that, Mr. Tolkien...

Back to the topic. There aren't a whole lot of Western countries with a need for a lightweight fighter, most of them are choosing more sophisticated gear along the lines of the Gripen and Eurofailure.

 

[Scorpion82]

Good posts Kilo2-3

Nonetheless some thoughts of mine. What people must bear in mind is that technology is evolving. Military requirements are subsequently evolving as well and the result are ever more complex combat aircraft and the more complex they are, the more expensive they become. That some Asian countries like China or India can yet come up with relative inexpensive designs in comparison to American or European designs isn't surprising as they are often less ambitious and sophisticated, but even more importantly labour costs are much cheaper in these countries, at least for the time being. Once the wealth increases in those countries and once they are catching up their designs will become more expensive as well. One of the questions to ask is which country wants small cheap fighters? If you are surrounded by a number of friendly countries and just won't to police your skies, such aircraft would be sufficient. If you are neighbouring potential enemies your requirements will be based on the perceived threat level, but procurement decisions are always heavily influenced by affordability. However an appropriate weighting is mandatory. Purchasing a very small number of high performance fighters due to budget constrains might turn out to be inadequate to meet the perceived threat, in such cases a purchase of a larger quantity of low cost fighters might be more suitable. In other cases a mix of both could offer the best compromise. In the end of the day the existing manufacturers have a limited interest in investing into low cost fighters which aren't supported by their domestic governments and without potential support from customers at all they aren't going to happen. There is without doubt a certain market for these aircraft, as of now there are options available, however, and the requirement for new designs isn't overly pressing. The Russians can offer the Yak-130 for example and the Italians their counter part the M346. The Koreans have the T-50/A-50 and BAES could still offer the Hawk. Sweden still has a number of stored JAS 39A/B which could be sold or leased for little money, the Gripen NG might be more expensive to purchase, but what matters is the cost of ownership throughout the aircraft's life cycle. Used or new built F-16s are still an option as well, albeit the latest versions are not as cheap anymore as earlier variants, but I'm certain by sticking to some less complex equipment the costs could be reduced as well. The Tejas is certainly a strong contender for the cheap/light fighter requirement as well at some point in the future.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

Just a quick response to what's been said already.

I was a bit hasty in my characterization of NZ, apologies to the ANZAC posters for that for that. I'm well aware (and much more so, now) of NZ's history of military contributions abroad.

If we want to keep discussing this, I guess the NZDF thread is over thataway

Back on topic, what about the Mirage family? I know France made an offer to Iraq a few months back for some refurbed F.1s.

Warstock integration and spares might be a bit iffy, though.

 

[riksavage]

Good posts Kilo2-3

Nonetheless some thoughts of mine. What people must bear in mind is that technology is evolving. Military requirements are subsequently evolving as well and the result are ever more complex combat aircraft and the more complex they are, the more expensive they become. That some Asian countries like China or India can yet come up with relative inexpensive designs in comparison to American or European designs isn't surprising as they are often less ambitious and sophisticated, but even more importantly labour costs are much cheaper in these countries, at least for the time being. Once the wealth increases in those countries and once they are catching up their designs will become more expensive as well. One of the questions to ask is which country wants small cheap fighters? If you are surrounded by a number of friendly countries and just won't to police your skies, such aircraft would be sufficient. If you are neighbouring potential enemies your requirements will be based on the perceived threat level, but procurement decisions are always heavily influenced by affordability. However an appropriate weighting is mandatory. Purchasing a very small number of high performance fighters due to budget constrains might turn out to be inadequate to meet the perceived threat, in such cases a purchase of a larger quantity of low cost fighters might be more suitable. In other cases a mix of both could offer the best compromise. In the end of the day the existing manufacturers have a limited interest in investing into low cost fighters which aren't supported by their domestic governments and without potential support from customers at all they aren't going to happen. There is without doubt a certain market for these aircraft, as of now there are options available, however, and the requirement for new designs isn't overly pressing. The Russians can offer the Yak-130 for example and the Italians their counter part the M346. The Koreans have the T-50/A-50 and BAES could still offer the Hawk. Sweden still has a number of stored JAS 39A/B which could be sold or leased for little money, the Gripen NG might be more expensive to purchase, but what matters is the cost of ownership throughout the aircraft's life cycle. Used or new built F-16s are still an option as well, albeit the latest versions are not as cheap anymore as earlier variants, but I'm certain by sticking to some less complex equipment the costs could be reduced as well. The Tejas is certainly a strong contender for the cheap/light fighter requirement as well at some point in the future.

Looking at current Kiwi deployments in support of ongoing asymmetrical operations would the country not be better off investing in an armed recon/attack helicopter capable of supporting NZSAS activity. Rebuilding fixed wing from scratch would be expensive and time consuming. They could then leverage of existing rotary wing training facilities and end up with a very capable platform able to deal with armour, bunkers and the Taliban.

A rotary CAS asset could deploy aboard the new Australian Canberra class in the event an ANZAC force needs assembling. NZ could follow Australia's lead and buy Tiger, new Bell AH 1Z Vipers or 2nd hand Cobra's (both come marinised).

 

[recce.k1]

What's your thoughts on the Lynx Wildcat in the CAS role, Rik?

 

[ngatimozart]

Looking at current Kiwi deployments in support of ongoing asymmetrical operations would the country not be better off investing in an armed recon/attack helicopter capable of supporting NZSAS activity. Rebuilding fixed wing from scratch would be expensive and time consuming. They could then leverage of existing rotary wing training facilities and end up with a very capable platform able to deal with armour, bunkers and the Taliban.

A rotary CAS asset could deploy aboard the new Australian Canberra class in the event an ANZAC force needs assembling. NZ could follow Australia's lead and buy Tiger, new Bell AH 1Z Vipers or 2nd hand Cobra's (both come marinised).

A very good point and long lines of something I suggested on another thread a while back. 2 questions regarding the Tiger. Have the Australian Army sorted out issues they had with it when it was being bought into service? Secondly would it fit into the standard ANZAC Frigate hangar?

Having said that lets move this conversation to the http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/royal-new-zealand-air-force-6601-84/#post226605 thread where it belongs because it is off topic.