Help support TMP


"Why Uganda Needed Sukhoi Fighters" Topic


10 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Modern Aviation Discussion (1946-2006) Message Board

Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2006-present) Message Board



607 hits since 19 Jan 2018
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango0119 Jan 2018 10:54 a.m. PST

"Combat aircraft are among the most important single weapons systems in any country's arsenal. They are not only the most lethal, but also the most flexible and most visible form of military power.

More often than not, combat aircraft can be highly effective alone due to their sheer presence without firing a single shot. Unsurprisingly, aircraft and air forces not only gobble apparently disproportional chunks of defense budgets, but also provide disproportional effects relative to their number.

Most people don't differentiate between air forces that function within frameworks of firm and proven defense treaties, and are thus custom-tailored for combined and joint operations and those air forces that function within their very own context…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Apache 620 Jan 2018 6:52 a.m. PST

This is a pretty interesting basic discussion which has lots of insights for anyone doing modern or cold war era "imaginations."

What is not discussed enough in the article is the prestige that is believed to come from having jet fighter aircraft. Or the challenges many nations have in maintaining the aircraft and pilot proficiency required to maintain them in airworthy and combat effective manner.

Today, even the US Navy is having challenges maintaining readiness due to parts availability (which really translates to budget shortfalls) issues.

There are several Nations today that have airforces with no operational aircraft but that still employ thousands of men. Many more have air forces that "only" fly a few usually propeller driver aircraft (such as various marks of CESSNA, AN-2 Colts, C-130s or maybe even the venerable C-47)/

When the Afghanistan Air Force was being rebuilt their were recommendation, mostly coming from Marines that they be rebuilt as an close air support focused force and that they be equipped with turbo prop aircraft, such as the OV-10, Super Tucano or others of the type. For a host of reasons, they ended up being given F-16s, which many people doubt they will be able to maintain in the long run.

I've often thought that a squadron of P-51s, F-4Us, A-20s or similar aircraft of WWII vintage would be more appropriate (and likely 'cheaper') for many air forces then a signle 'modern' jet fighters, and end up being more useful and sustainable.

There are several companies building 'lower tech' attack aircraft. At least a couple of them can be equipped with Air to Air missiles.

Charlie 1220 Jan 2018 10:22 a.m. PST

True enough, Apache 6. Given the difficulties that some first tier nations in maintaining a credible air force, that becomes even worse for lower tier nations. Better to have a squadron of functional turboprops than a handful of high tech hanger queen fast movers.

Tango0120 Jan 2018 10:47 a.m. PST

Glad you enjoyed it my friend!.

Amicalement
Armand

Jcfrog Supporting Member of TMP20 Jan 2018 10:53 a.m. PST

Ego
Looks good seated near presidential plane on tarmac.
Guards in compulsory red berat ( all angles) and Ray bans.

Personal logo Striker Supporting Member of TMP20 Jan 2018 12:04 p.m. PST

Yep, the Top Gun factor has to be part of the equation. Even the US could use more low-tech aircraft for the types of actions its in now. But fast movers are so much cooler.

28mm Fanatik20 Jan 2018 2:05 p.m. PST

There was a quote in 'Top Gun' where Charlie (Kelly McGillis) said to Tom Cruise's Maverick with regards to the F-14 Tomcat:

"That's a big gamble with a $30 USD million dollar plane, Lieutenant."

Seems like a bargain now doesn't it?

picture

bobblanchett21 Jan 2018 1:34 a.m. PST

Apache 6: I'm interested in imagination-ing..

Id be quite interested inWhich low tech aircraft with AAM you're referring to

ROUWetPatchBehindTheSofa21 Jan 2018 10:33 a.m. PST

Like the 'includes VAT' comment in the table.

Still the defence industry isn't really up for selling regimes national budget appropriate systems… (and the whole thing can be as much geo-political as commercial)

I've often wondered if you gave a modern defence contractor the design and spec for something like the P-47 for sake of argument, and said 'I want 100 of those' what unit price you'd be given. I'm not saying that the $1 USD million odd that the inflation adjusted cost of a 1945 P-47 would be on target, clearly a you'd want modern communications etc, and there is capital cost in a new production line, but how much more is the question…

Apache 621 Jan 2018 8:41 p.m. PST

Bobblanchett: While I'll admit my knowledge is only "widapedia deep", both the OV-10 (which can carry an AIM-9 sidewinder) and the Super Tuchano (which can carry a Brazilian air to air missiles.)

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.