New life to older aircraft

I will not say delusional sir, that would be rude

However, it is actually the cost prevents such things from happening, or in the case above, the Mig23/27 scenario
these modifications you mentioned, amounts to huge research, just like designing a new aircraft, and thats where the problem lies, testing and prototyping the whole damn thing from start to finish is expensive.

And there is always political mutuality between the countries involved, for example J7 - Srilanka - China, F16 - Indonesia - US.
These cheap deals did not just happen because they feel good at each other and decide to throw in some fighters to the party. Unless your country is on their radar and they need something beneficial from you, such offers are hard to come by.

Getting a cheap fighter procurement solution is not easy for cash strapped air force these days, its either swallow the budget cost and brave the politic storm, or none at all because you don't have any funds or political capital.

Another way to build up AF capabilities is to start from trainers, so you retain the training process and pilot skills, without having to invest in any certain fighter aircraft platform. Trainers are far cheaper to operate compared to full fledged fighters.

If you are looking for real cheap solutions, J-7 and JF-17 are the only real alternatives, but then you have to commit to Chinese parts and logistics.

Cash strapped third world nations buying trainers to project air power is a excellent idea. One plane that comes to mind is the advanced jet trainer the BAE Hawk. They have been around for 35+ yrs so there should be a few older variants on the market. The fact that they can carry armanents would be an added advantage. I also believe they are capable for carrying out anti ship operations.

To an extent this already happens

The Thai Airforce picked up ex-German AlphaJets, The Filipinos are looking at used Italian AMXs.

Basically if you are cash strapped and friends with the Chinese then you can grab J7s otherwise you're looking at low mileage euro kit. Most ex-Soviet and US stuff are going to either have too little airframe life left or are maintenance nightmares for dinky airforces with no cash!

Plans to Acquire the Used Italian AMX Trainers has Been Cancelled by the PAF as the Brand New T/A-50 Advanced Jet Aircraft from S. Korea might be Selected Instead ...

The Swiss have performed two major upgrades of their F-5E fleet, along with South Korea and Taiwan. Of course these national also already owned the aircraft in their inventory, which made the upgrades easier. Even Brasil acquired F-5E from Jordan and upgraded with Israeli avionics

There is only so much you can do to upgrade and refurbish older aircraft until the costs of refurbishment outweigh a newer, similar aircraft due to replacement of fatigue items and corrosion. Furthermore, there may be issues with parts obsolesce; certain parts may be so obsolete, that there is no real replacement out there except to custom fabricate the component, which is costly.

Originally Posted by Pointblank

There is only so much you can do to upgrade and refurbish older aircraft until the costs of refurbishment outweigh a newer, similar aircraft due to replacement of fatigue items and corrosion. Furthermore, there may be issues with parts obsolesce; certain parts may be so obsolete, that there is no real replacement out there except to custom fabricate the component, which is costly.

Thank you! I guess I was being delusional as to the investment required in an old airframe. I was just trying to think along the Israeli style of upgades and with a 3rd world "don't throw stuff away mentality.

Originally Posted by Miragedriver

The Swiss have performed two major upgrades of their F-5E fleet, along with South Korea and Taiwan. Of course these national also already owned the aircraft in their inventory, which made the upgrades easier. Even Brasil acquired F-5E from Jordan and upgraded with Israeli avionics

Brazil did a great job in upgrading their F-5E aircraft which the Philippines failed to do so and instead retired it's entire fleet without a replacement in 2005 ...

There are definitely many capable older aircraft out there which can be upgraded, or brand new lower end trainers to be had. Part of the problem that hasn't been highlighted is that any fleet has to be maintained, so unless there is an immediate need for airpower a poor country may decide that it simply doesn't make sense to have any fleet at all. Besides from the aircraft, maintenance also includes resources to maintain the air crew, basing, and enough training to make the force competent. This would likely be a commitment for at least the lifetime of the aircraft. A poor country most likely cannot afford such a comprehensive program and it would be a waste of resources if they pursued a program which is not as comprehensive and therefore also likely to be ineffective.

If I were a 3rd world air force commander, what is my driving priority, offensive and/or defensive? With a limited budget, I may simply look into spending that money on some good SAM systems. Much more effective and less op/maint cost. When you don't have a big budget, the op/maint cost is what kills you, not the acquisition.

Originally Posted by joshuatree

If I were a 3rd world air force commander, what is my driving priority, offensive and/or defensive? With a limited budget, I may simply look into spending that money on some good SAM systems. Much more effective and less op/maint cost. When you don't have a big budget, the op/maint cost is what kills you, not the acquisition.

That's absolutely true, mobile long range SAM systems are the best alternatives to any nations air force with limited funding source ...

In the Eritrean–Ethiopian War, both relatively poor countries went directly for the best that they could afford/get, MiG-29 and Su-27 with East European merc pilots. The result? Eritrean Mig-29 swatted Ethiopian Mig-21 and Mig-23 planes out if the sky like flies, and Ethiopian Su-27's swatted Eritrean Mig-29's out of the sky like flies.

If the security situation was bad enough, I doubt even 3rd world countries would settle for 3rd rate combat aircraft. They are likely to try and get the best that they can because the newer and more powerful combat jets will likely swat the older ones out if the skies like flies.

If a 3rd world AF buy 3rd rate planes, it's probably because the security situation affords them to.

Originally Posted by joshuatree

If I were a 3rd world air force commander, what is my driving priority, offensive and/or defensive? With a limited budget, I may simply look into spending that money on some good SAM systems. Much more effective and less op/maint cost. When you don't have a big budget, the op/maint cost is what kills you, not the acquisition.

Not to be contradictory, but the Syrians and the Iraqis both had extensive air defense systems, yet they didn’t do much to stop the Israelis from achieving air superiority and decimating the ground based SAM systems.

Even highly effective defenses have suffered embarrassing failures. Despite the vaunted abilities of Israeli air defenses, in October 1989 a lone Syrian MiG-23 successfully evaded interception by flying at low altitude and landed at an Israeli airfield. Both Korean airliner incidents [1978 and 1983] show the kind of troubles suggest that Soviet air defenses had serious problems. And Soviet air defenses were further embarrassed by the ability of a lone German Cessna aircraft to land in the middle of Red Square. That this was not an isolated failing was demonstrated on 9 June 1990, when the unidentified pilot of another Cessna landed at the airport at Batumi on the Black Sea, placed two bouquets of carnations on the runway, and then took off.

The case for heavy investment in SAM systems is not clear. Given prospective deficiencies in air defense systems, initiatives to build defenses against Strike Aircraft simply distract attention from more immediate matters. An very effective air defenses causes around one quarter of attacking pilots fail to return from their missions. With the continued advancement in ECM and Passive defense system. Will make air defense missile system even less effective.

More practical and effective measures are also available to protect against Strike Aircraft. Passive defenses include the ability to disperse, conceal, and harden the targets that missiles might attack. For a fraction of the cost of high-tech anti-missile weapons, vast amounts of concrete could be poured to make command bunkers and aircraft far less vulnerable to attack by both aircraft and missiles. Such measures would have a vastly greater positive impact on the credibility of a country's deterrent posture than missile defenses.

The upgraded MiG-27 enhanced the IAF’s operational capability and successfully engages targets with ease. The avionics in has reduced errors due to better weapon aiming computations and increased navigational accuracy. Considering that the IAF has six MiG-27 fighter aircraft squadrons this avionics upgrade is a ‘force multiplier’ in airpower terms.

Quote from artice: “For air force commanders, superior avionics means that only five MiG-27 aircraft would undertake an offensive mission rather than 10 aircraft due to higher chances of success.”