Military Aviation > Air Forces
Argentine Air Force - FAA
Globetrotter:
In fact, what I meant was that the Su-35 is more expensive to mantain than a single engined airplane, or that even the MiG-29. Not the initial costs, but manteinance.
I don't believe we'd purchase Russian products right now, even thouhg I would like that a lot.
About the F-16... well, they are too highly priced, it is not good value for your money, I would buy a Su-35 instead... even though it costs more to mantain, I won't give my money for a simpler material. If we get F-16s, they HAVE to be better than Chile's. not that I am planning an invasion or something... but just to keep it on our side :P
The French also put their prices high... that's why my final word is: Fulcrum.
(not that the FAA will take my final word... ::)
--- Quote ---They don't last long, but are very cheap and MLU-4 standard.
--- End quote ---
sorry, but if they don't last then sell them to Chile so they got the whole package, I'll go with something brand new please!!! I need something brand new!!! My mirages have 35 years!!! :o
Webmaster:
Consider this, the engine is the most maintenance demanding piece of equipment on a jet. Single-engine will cut the biggest maintenance item on your cost list by about 50%.
The Mirage 2000 production line has been closed or will be closed soon. So if you want something new from France, you have to cough up for the Rafale.
The fact that the MIIIs are so old is exactly why an interim purchase is likely. New ones have more lead-time. Russia delivers fast, true, but you'll still to bridge a gap of at least 5 years before they are fully operational. However, the Skyhawk force may be deemed sufficient for that?
True, the Chile contract (they bought 18 though, count another 4 single and 2 duos) is my inspiration behind my last post. However I don't think it will happen until maybe they get some US surplus or new F-16s first. Just because they are old and high-houred, they are only interesting to existing F-16 operators who need an interim solution until they can buy more new ones, or just need more two-seaters (Jordan). The problem with a non-F-16 operator buying them before the arrival of new F-16s with US support, is that older aircraft require more maintenance/engineering and spare parts support, so they probably will be too costly if you don't already have your F-16 logistics in place.
If I recall it correctly, Chile paid $180 Million for 18 jets, upgraded to MLU standard 3 and/or 4, including engineering training/support. They are Block 15s built between 1982-1988, updated in 1997-2003 to Block 20 MLU standard, and were M2 software standard, but I believe the US DOD requirement was to upgrade them to the latest MLU status before delivery, I think that brought them to M3 status as M4 consists of software updates for equipment not used by Chile? HMD, Link-16 for example? At least a $7.5 million contract with LM was needed before the sale could continue. And the US required the RNLAF to overhaul them before delivery. They have about 3,000 hours per airframe. Despite, the houred airframes, I still think it's pretty cheap. I actually haven't seen many cheaper second-hand jet deals with upgrade/overhaul included at this capability level.
But enough about F-16s and MiG-29s, latest news in the aviation press seem to suggest ex-AdlA Mirage 2000Cs again.
Globetrotter:
well, the rumors in Argentina have it that a pre-contrat has been signed with dassault aviation for a possible buy of Mirages 2000 that will eventually be out of service, as the Rafale gains terrain ;)
I wish this is true! If it has to be one engined, let it be Mirage 2000.
I think i wrote long post on why not US F-16s. However, I think F-16s from Nederalnds are cheap... 10 millions per aircraft is reeeeealy cheap!
many people say that Mirages F-1 could be used while the Mirages 2000 arrive. So instead of using those, F-16 from Netherlands could be a great option. Even more if we consider Chileans have them ---> we would know their armament extensively. And they won't know much or not as much as we do about our Mirages 2000.
Raptor:
... ... F-16s are 40 m a copy... ...
Sergei. About the high-G turns... In the modern battlefield, the US seems to be relying completely on technology. An aspect that i actually support. They miss out in conventional warfare, though, so if something happens to their avionics, they do squat.
Russian aircraft are very good and are very reasonably priced. But they just have too many accidents for a country that's on a rather tight pilot usage. Any thought for the Su-37?
Globetrotter:
I mean, the F-16 webmaster said. they sold 18 to Chile for 180 millions, do the maths and you have 18 falcons for 10 M each.
About the Su-27, I don't really have a clue. maybe now with new president? I don't think so.... :-\
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version