New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Another possibility would be to modify the J-31 design for simplicity of operations and logistical support, and bring in Brazil and Venezuela to boost production numbers.

Kurt, hope you had a go time at the Oktoberfest. I image large quantities of beer were consumed as part of the festivities. We have a very authentic Oktoberfest in the Andes (city of Bariloche), which has a large German population.
I was again read and re-reading your replies from last month and I wanted to touch upon the raptor aircraft. I again with you that the Su-47, or even a Su-35 type you be grand. However realistically given Argentines prior track record of purchasing older equipment, how would you see about 2 squadrons (36 single seater, plus 4 or so OCU) of MiG-29’s (used) updated with Israeli avionics? Similar to the Israeli/Romanian Sniper project. These aircraft could fit the dogfighter/BVR component of the air force. They would work in conjunction with AWCA and CAP. If not the MiG-29s then a comparable number of used (first production runs) of the J-10.

As a secondary aircraft I have been contemplating is a rough field strike aircraft similar in design to the J-22 Orao. The advantages would be that it is easy to construct (the Romanians built them in tractor factories) inexpensive to build, and would be well suited to the low-density conflict. The aircraft carries around 2, 500kg of external fuel and munitions and could be utilized as a poor mans Jaguar.
All this hypothetical is of course based on the use of UAVs to data link and coordinate the operations

Originally Posted by siegecrossbow

How about this???

Wonderful aircraft, but unaffordable for Argentina.

Originally Posted by Miragedriver

Wonderful aircraft, but unaffordable for Argentina.

Yes it's a wonderful fighter plane, but Argentina still needs something like it to improve her Air Forces.

Originally Posted by Equation

Yes it's a wonderful fighter plane, but Argentina still needs something like it to improve her Air Forces.

Agreed. An aircraft like that is necessary to be able to counter 21st century threats and to combat against F-16’s. However given the modus operandi of the Argentine military, then used equipment is the probable route. Used Mig-29, Su-27 or J-10 with Israeli avionics will probably be the likely scenario.
However, since the final decision lays with the politician and not the military we could all be surprised! Like the recent decision to construct 40 IA-63 trainers to act as a stop gap to cover the loss of the 30+ Mirage III/Nesher/Mirage V. Who knows, we may see the purchase of surplus Kfir from Israel.

Originally Posted by Miragedriver

Kurt, hope you had a go time at the Oktoberfest. I image large quantities of beer were consumed as part of the festivities. We have a very authentic Oktoberfest in the Andes (city of Bariloche), which has a large German population.
I was again read and re-reading your replies from last month and I wanted to touch upon the raptor aircraft. I again with you that the Su-47, or even a Su-35 type you be grand. However realistically given Argentines prior track record of purchasing older equipment, how would you see about 2 squadrons (36 single seater, plus 4 or so OCU) of MiG-29’s (used) updated with Israeli avionics? Similar to the Israeli/Romanian Sniper project. These aircraft could fit the dogfighter/BVR component of the air force. They would work in conjunction with AWCA and CAP. If not the MiG-29s then a comparable number of used (first production runs) of the J-10.

As a secondary aircraft I have been contemplating is a rough field strike aircraft similar in design to the J-22 Orao. The advantages would be that it is easy to construct (the Romanians built them in tractor factories) inexpensive to build, and would be well suited to the low-density conflict. The aircraft carries around 2, 500kg of external fuel and munitions and could be utilized as a poor mans Jaguar.
All this hypothetical is of course based on the use of UAVs to data link and coordinate the operations

You seemingly start at the wrong end. If these aircrafts are meant to impress Paraguay and Urugay you got green light, if they are meant to fight a war with a peer and a superior competitor I congratulate you on the construction of aircraft shelters as you will not have enough fuel.
Start the aircraft project with two problems in mind: They need fuel and they need runways. Both are under attack.
Afterwards comes the second line of problems: They must survive in the air and they must strike from the air.
Then comes the third layer of problems: They must take down those enemy strike fighters.
If you don't get through to the third layer you still have something useful.
If you don't get to the second layer you have limited uses due to the very low force density (missions a Pucara can fly).
If you don't solve the starting problems what else do you want to accomplish?

Russian aircrafts have a long tradition of being heavy and not the world's most efficient fuel consumers that adds even more to their high weight issue. Compared to this fuel consumption the bombload is not overwhelming. You don't have much to bomb in the low force density environment where Chile, Argentina and the UK try to have conflict, but it's like a sledgehammer for making jewelry.
Get a light aircraft from Russia, China(?- unlikely source because it is still under sanctions on military hardware) or India with Israeli avionics on board and a rugged efficient engine from Europe or the USA. The question is not so much about what specific type, but what is within the range of available and affordable stuff that gets highest on the problem list to solve shown above.
Argentina can possibly get more bang for the buck if they ask the Russians for some advice on aerodynamics and built a lightweight frame that doesn't compete with other Russian designs and then like India get the rest of the world's MIC on board. Argentina would have a limited national task honing the airframe in order to create a rugged low maintenance thing without exorbitant production costs.
As Argentina still dreams of carrier aviation, India would be a much honoured partner with the HAL Tejas (LAC) and AMCA (Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft) that both go for land and carrier aviation. But you need to honour a lot the Indian tradition of never saying no and promising everything without the slightest hint of a problem. Personally, I'd go for the Indian option as soon as these evidently fly in numbers. I like the HAL Tejas as it is simple and light with an eye for structural stealth features that help to avoid unnecesssary engagements.

You are correct, the Mig’s are fuel hungry and would have limited range. As you have suggested many time the only option available is and Su-27, Su-35, or bite the bullet and invest in the Su-47. One major fighter, one type of airframe, and one type of engine to maintain. It provides range, power and can take on the F-16 with proper integration of AWAC and support UAVs.
This would include several squadrons of turbo prop strike aircraft for the low intensity action. I believe I keep missing the low intensity aspect.

Originally Posted by Kurt

Russian aircrafts have a long tradition of being heavy and not the world's most efficient fuel consumers that adds even more to their high weight issue. Compared to this fuel consumption the bombload is not overwhelming. You don't have much to bomb in the low force density environment where Chile, Argentina and the UK try to have conflict, but it's like a sledgehammer for making jewelry.
Get a light aircraft from Russia, China(?- unlikely source because it is still under sanctions on military hardware) or India with Israeli avionics on board and a rugged efficient engine from Europe or the USA. The question is not so much about what specific type, but what is within the range of available and affordable stuff that gets highest on the problem list to solve shown above.
Argentina can possibly get more bang for the buck if they ask the Russians for some advice on aerodynamics and built a lightweight frame that doesn't compete with other Russian designs and then like India get the rest of the world's MIC on board. Argentina would have a limited national task honing the airframe in order to create a rugged low maintenance thing without exorbitant production costs.
As Argentina still dreams of carrier aviation, India would be a much honoured partner with the HAL Tejas (LAC) and AMCA (Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft) that both go for land and carrier aviation. But you need to honour a lot the Indian tradition of never saying no and promising everything without the slightest hint of a problem. Personally, I'd go for the Indian option as soon as these evidently fly in numbers. I like the HAL Tejas as it is simple and light with an eye for structural stealth features that help to avoid unnecesssary engagements.

Can believe somebody make this absurd comment and more amusing is to ask AF to invest on a LCA fighter which has not even achieved IOC and plague with plenty of problem of overweight and lack of angle of attack? Does AF want to sink into an endless pithole?

It also funny how you comment on range and you recommend LCA which its small and heavy airframe can't carry much fuel(contradicting,right?) .

Then you talk about China which under military sanction as if China miltiary aviation depends on these export item to complete a deal? K-8? J-7? Y-8?

In fact, I think China has a perfect product for a limted budget Airforce like AF. L-15, it has already secured 2 customers from south American and Africa and will be delivered in end of the year(sources from China AVIC website news). Not to mention huge backorder possible from PLAAF and PLANAF which will eventually reduced per unit cost. L-15 will be killing two birds with a stone. It will save AF trainer fee and quick transition of new pilots into this trainer. Do not be fool by the word trainer. This L-15 is infact design to be able to convert into attacker/fighter with relative ease. Its spec can matched a typical 4th generation fighter. Excellent flight capabilities are demonstrated in Dubai and Zuhai Airshow.

Originally Posted by Miragedriver

You are correct, the Mig’s are fuel hungry and would have limited range. As you have suggested many time the only option available is and Su-27, Su-35, or bite the bullet and invest in the Su-47. One major fighter, one type of airframe, and one type of engine to maintain. It provides range, power and can take on the F-16 with proper integration of AWAC and support UAVs.
This would include several squadrons of turbo prop strike aircraft for the low intensity action. I believe I keep missing the low intensity aspect.

Does AF has the budget to maintain a fleet of SU-27 or SU-35? Look at Indonesian AF which is similiar to AF with limited budget. After acquiring a few Su-30MKK, they stop of completing a squadron and go for American F-16. More or less set an example for AF to think twice before going for big jet like Su-27 airframe.

Originally Posted by Lion

Can believe somebody make this absurd comment and more amusing is to ask AF to invest on a LCA fighter which has not even achieved IOC and plague with plenty of problem of overweight and lack of angle of attack? Does AF want to sink into an endless pithole?

It also funny how you comment on range and you recommend LCA which its small and heavy airframe can't carry much fuel(contradicting,right?) .

Then you talk about China which under military sanction as if China miltiary aviation depends on these export item to complete a deal? K-8? J-7? Y-8?

In fact, I think China has a perfect product for a limted budget Airforce like AF. L-15, it has already secured 2 customers from south American and Africa and will be delivered in end of the year(sources from China AVIC website news). Not to mention huge backorder possible from PLAAF and PLANAF which will eventually reduced per unit cost. L-15 will be killing two birds with a stone. It will save AF trainer fee and quick transition of new pilots into this trainer. Do not be fool by the word trainer. This L-15 is infact design to be able to convert into attacker/fighter with relative ease. Its spec can matched a typical 4th generation fighter. Excellent flight capabilities are demonstrated in Dubai and Zuhai Airshow.

Thanks for your input. The conflict for which these aircrafts are required is in an extreme low force density(not intensity) environment where the ability to survive and deliver trump speed. A light airframe that takes a slow approach to target with a high bombload in comparison to overall weight at a low stall speed and can fight to survive if required is sufficient and good. The problem are avionics. Using a Chinese airframe can always get you into trouble if you need compatibility with Western derived electronics. The design of the HAL Tejas is compareable to the F-16 or Gripen and has a lot of simplicity advantages as well as a number of problems. Out of these, it's the only one that will operate from carriers and thus the only choice for a country that is small and wants a carrier. Argentina is well advised to make some structural modifications to their Tejas version, but the great simplicity of design achievement India highlights with this fighter pulled me over.

Originally Posted by Kurt

Thanks for your input. The conflict for which these aircrafts are required is in an extreme low force density(not intensity) environment where the ability to survive and deliver trump speed. A light airframe that takes a slow approach to target with a high bombload in comparison to overall weight at a low stall speed and can fight to survive if required is sufficient and good. The problem are avionics. Using a Chinese airframe can always get you into trouble if you need compatibility with Western derived electronics. The design of the HAL Tejas is compareable to the F-16 or Gripen and has a lot of simplicity advantages as well as a number of problems. Out of these, it's the only one that will operate from carriers and thus the only choice for a country that is small and wants a carrier. Argentina is well advised to make some structural modifications to their Tejas version, but the great simplicity of design achievement India highlights with this fighter pulled me over.

I don't see the point of small airforce like AF need to source from so many supplier to complicate its logistic and maintenance problem. You know why IAF go for Rafale instead of Typhoon? Why LCA suffer so many problem because of trying to intergrate so many different country system into one? (France, Russia, Israel and Indian). JF-17 can go so fast and smoothly is an fine example and wise decision for PAF to opt for.

China has demonstrated in house package from airframe, avionics, weapon system all into one. Reducing cost and maintenance. Isn't that better? Unless you got a big paycheck, then you can try more. And money is AF precisly what's lacking.

Originally Posted by Kurt

Thanks for your input. The conflict for which these aircrafts are required is in an extreme low force density(not intensity) environment where the ability to survive and deliver trump speed. A light airframe that takes a slow approach to target with a high bombload in comparison to overall weight at a low stall speed and can fight to survive if required is sufficient and good. The problem are avionics. Using a Chinese airframe can always get you into trouble if you need compatibility with Western derived electronics. The design of the HAL Tejas is compareable to the F-16 or Gripen and has a lot of simplicity advantages as well as a number of problems. Out of these, it's the only one that will operate from carriers and thus the only choice for a country that is small and wants a carrier. Argentina is well advised to make some structural modifications to their Tejas version, but the great simplicity of design achievement India highlights with this fighter pulled me over.

Kurt I’m confused about a certain detail. In a previous posting we talked about the need for a raptor that could engage an F-16 type of aircraft (of course with the use of manned and unmanned AWAC and INT support, which I am in complete agreement) in the BVR realm and also be an agile dogfighter to deter any “trigger happy F-16 jocks”. The only aircraft that come to mind (with the limited knowledge available to me) are the J-10, SU-27 (30&35), SU-47 and the MIg-29. Let’s look at these aircraft individually:

The J-10 would be a great fit, good range, great payload (can also be used for caring more drop tanks), BVR capable, very agile and the Chinese would continue to sell if there was a conflict with Chile or a western supporter adversary. Additionally the Chinese could sell some first production (used) aircraft. J-10's advocates on this forum have claimed that it is equal to a block 30/40+/- F-16. The drawback is that it needs runways, but given its good range they can be held back to allow any strike aircraft to have to penetrate deeper to hit these targets and thereby grant more response time to intercept.

The Mig-29 has a limited range, good payload, BVR capable, very agile and the Russians would continue to sell if there was a conflict with Chile or a western supporter adversary. It would also give a commonality of aircraft with Peru, which would be an allied in any conflict with Chile. The Mig-29 has one advantage that all of the aircraft considered do not have. That is being rough field capable and less expensive to acquire. Granted the payload is reduced when in rough field use, but we are talking dogfight BVR air to air combat, not a heavy strike mission. That job goes to the turboprops (or another aircraft we can review later).

The Su-27 types have an excellent range, excellent payload, very agile, great detection range and the Russians would continue to sell if there was a conflict with Chile or a western supporter adversary. It is more than a match for the F-16. The drawback is that, again, it needs runways, but given its good range they can be held back to allow any strike aircraft to have to penetrate deeper to hit these targets and thereby grant more response time to intercept. Another drawback is cost and support (it is a very large and complex aircraft).

The Su-47 same comments as the S-27 types except that it has a “stealth lite” component as an advantage and an even higher acquisition cost.

I don’t see the Indian LCA as a viable option for several reasons: high acquisition cost, still in the preproduction teething stage, limited range and the GE 404/414 engine which could be embargoed. Then we get into the entire hassle of developing one’s own aircraft. Grated that Argentine could and has done this in the past and FMA could obtain designs from the Chinese or the Russians for a non-competing aircraft design. Then again one could resurrect some other designed which “could” work such as the IAR-95, which would have capabilities similar to the JF-17 (so therefore why not just obtain a license to produce a JF-17); the Novi Avion which could be a very agile aircraft and be a mini Rafale, or maybe work with Brasil on restating the MFT-LF concept. All these “concept” aircraft would require time and monies. Acquiring a license to produce, or assemble from parts and make parts for some of the aircraft mentioned in the beginning would be more economical and expedient. Granted, there is an intangible amount of national pride that is a result of making ones on aircraft. But given the requirements for BVR, dogfighting ability, cost it is better to modify or use existing aircraft available on the market. Additionally if one eliminates USA aircraft and English (including BAE supported products) that leaves you the Chinese, Russians and the French; the French are expensive, and no Mirage 2000 user are selling off their fleet, since it’s still useful.

Raptor was a choice made to highlight the high end fighter aspect of a high low mix, not itself implying to buy a Raptor.

I started from the requirement for land and carrier based aviation. I arrived at force density and logistics being decisive. All light fighters need much less fuel while transporting enough ordnance for expected targets in low force density environments. The Chilean F-16 is one such light fighter. The Tejas seems one of the best light fighter choice to me as soon as the things get clear about their production in numbers. India can be an unsafe bet.

Originally Posted by Kurt

So we are left with the Russian products and possibly some Chinese if their carrier operations move along. MiG-29K/M, Su-33/27 and PAK FA/HAL FGFA are in the race. It's my opinion that Sukhoi is the better design bureau and MiG needs subsidies to survive. Ordering a MiG would leave you with higher costs as the design is not produced in as high numbers as the modern Sukhois. The numerous Sukhoi exports make it more likely to acquire some components from other countries than Russia.
Both the Su-33/27 Flankers as well as the PAK FA/HAL FGFA are options. The fashion in Latin America is for buying cheap second hand fighters, but I would try to get my hands on the PAK FA/HAL FGFA if Israeli upgrades on avionics and networking are possible. The avionics in the HAL FGFA are Indian and they do have a longstanding tradition of cooperation with Israel, making the Sukhoi HAL FGFA the most promising choice. Israeli input is needed especially for state of the art fried-foe recognition networked(!) with the aerial surveilance and defence aid systems.
The Su-33/27 Flanker is a cheaper option that can be obtained second hand, especially the Su-33 from Admiral Kuznetsov. It can be networked with Israeli avionics for processing surveillance data and friend-foe distinction and has a whole family line of 4++ evolutions available for upgrades

It seems like the Tejas will never really “get its act together” additionally the GE404/414 engine could be a problem with possible sanctions.
If we are talking small combat aircraft then the JF-17 could counter the F-16 to a certain extent.
Based upon an early post we discussed the Mig-29 K/M version but the Su27/33 would be a better bet. This is what I suggested in the upgraded Mig-29. I mentioned this one because of the rough field capability over the Su-27/33. Some type of superiority fighter is required to counter the F-16. As a novice to aviation strategy and force mix (I do not have your level of knowledge or information) I am having difficulty understanding your concept. I comprehend that you made a recommendation for high-end raptors, but I do not understand the LCA you are proposing that is an existing commodity in present day. Not a probable aircraft that could be developed and utilized with outside help. But an existing aircraft that could be co produced under license, or assembled from parts and modified to meet the local requirements of low density combat in high ECM electronic environment

The low-density force could be an indigenous cooperation with Brasil on the MFT-LF. The strike element can be a mix of IA-58 and the Tucano.

Sorry its late and my English is deteriorating.