Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
How about the Grippen as a starting point?Could a modern equivalent be developed by through NATO - an airframe that could be competitive with majority of the Russian aircraft it would most likely encounter across the globe but still be affordable, simple and rugged enough to be operated in low tech or front line scenarios...? (which to my mind are sadly likely to become more common.)
Drones and cruise missiles would have had little tactical application against any full scale invasion though, surely, useful though they may be? A cruise missile is a one shot deal and requires targeting information. That's useful to take out a bridge - or maybe a factory if you're a nation with strategic capabilities or intentions - but of little use to the smaller ones I would have thought.Probably much better to invest in drones and cruise missiles.
The First Battle of the Next War: Wargaming a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan
CSIS wargamed a Chinese invasion of Taiwan 24 times and found that Taiwan would endure as a democratic and independent entity in most scenarios. However, the costs were enormous. Victory is not enough. The United States needs to strengthen deterrence to avoid war.www.csis.org
The above wargames found allied losses in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan to be 650-900+ aircraft. Most of them lost on the ground.
Yes, thats what I was thinking - a kind of 'austere' Gripen. Whats the cost of a Gripen compared to its current contemporaries?How about the Grippen as a starting point?
Polish are buying the Korean F/A-50.
For many countries, the choice might be 12 new F/A-50, or 12 F-16s from 1980s (= no goodies), or no 2020's F-16s.We can all agree I'm no expert but when I hear "austere", I think "dead". That's why I'm liking the F-16. It is loaded with goodies and may be the de facto F-5 of today.
Austere by western standards - still means Ferrari like by Russian military standards, is rather what I meant.We can all agree I'm no expert but when I hear "austere", I think "dead". That's why I'm liking the F-16. It is loaded with goodies and may be the de facto F-5 of today.
That's why I liked your mention of F/A-50, which again, I totally forgot about.For many countries, the choice might be 12 new F/A-50, or 12 F-16s from 1980s (= no goodies), or no 2020's F-16s.
It could be indicative of the Ukrainians simply having few aircraft left while they are getting an adequate supply of drones.Considering Russia's massive expenditure in guided munitions, their impact upon the Ukrainians, despite the huge damage to civilian infrastructure, has been remarkably indecisive. Once again, it seems to me that the idea that drones and cruise missiles have become the most important weapons seems premature. The fact that both sides are husbanding what they see as their most important battlefield assets - their pilots and aircraft - simply underlines that, doesn't it? Zelensky pointedly didn't ask the UK government for drones or cruise missiles - he wants combat aircraft. I would imagine he has good reason based on whats happening an whats needed.
With the likes of K2 tanks, K9 SPH and now light fighters, the Euro arms manufacturers and their political backers had better watch out, South Korea is aiming to take a good chunk of the global demand. F/A-50 light fighters lead to KF-21 air superiority fighters. It's Hyundai Pony to Genesis G80.That's why I liked your mention of F/A-50, which again, I totally forgot about.
The difference between the F16 and what I'm proposing as a gap-filler is I think is a bit more nuanced. The F16 was designed from the outset as a lightweight air superiority fighter, taking lessons learned in Vietnam and encompassing the theories of Colonel John Boyd and co.. It was admittedly designed to be the low cost part of the low-cost/high cost mix of F16/F15 that was envisaged, but 'low cost' was kinda relative, considering that it was both developed to be a front line aicraft in the worlds biggest and most expensive airforce - and then developed to be expected to take on a multirole spec and replace numerous aircraft - F104, F105, F4s etc.I think the F-16 has filled this niche for quite some time now.
I wonder if anyone has produced a comparative graphic showing comparative cost and capability of combat aircraft currently available for export...?Doesn't the F/A-50 fill that niche? The Boeing T-7? Guess the the Red Hawk might be a bit pricier. Cheaper gets a turbo prop, methinks.
I like the sound of the F/A50, but its already run into export problems because of the inclusion of the F404 engine.... What does it cost, comparitive to the competition? That might be a key aspect too.Doesn't the F/A-50 fill that niche? The Boeing T-7? Guess the the Red Hawk might be a bit pricier. Cheaper gets a turbo prop, methinks.