This is a discussion on Discussion of age of AC relative to combat value within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Right, im not really knowledgeable about aircraft and air combat so please spare with me if these questions are really ...
Right, im not really knowledgeable about aircraft and air combat so please spare with me if these questions are really stupid:
Modern Fighters tend to go for long-range weapons, BVRAAM like Meteor. This coupled to the availability of cheap AEW&C aircraft (better surveillance) and more effective missiles (larger angle of attack, better flight envelope etc).
Shouldnt this mean that it isnt as important as it used to, to have excellent agility and manouverability in new aircraft? As in: Would it be advisable for a small(ish) nation to upgrade electronics and weapons of current generation 3 fighters, to give them BVRAAM capability and add AEW&C, rahter than procure a more expensive 4/4+ generation fighter? At BVR, the need for a super-manouverable aircraft seems less interesting.
Granted, this would reduce effecivness in short range engagements of course.
Well, a number of airforces have done this (particularly: the upgrades for F-4 including a modern radar and AMRAAM).
However, in most cases these upgrades were originally meant to "bridge gaps" until the introduction of some next-gen fighter, even though those would only come 20 years later then.
Right, take for instance the swiss: They want to replace 3 sqdns worth of F-5Es. Would it be better to upgrade computers/electronics, weapons and i suppose needed replacements of worn parts, or buy new aircraft off-the-shelves? Financially i guess the first option would be better. But then, its a really small country wich leads to higher possibillity of "dogfights" where the old F-5 most likely would loose. In this case, me personally, would think new Aircraft are advisable.
Other scenario: Sweden gets into NATO, does not upgrade any aircraft to the now being developed E/F-standard (Super-Gripen). But rather retains some 50 C/Ds and 100 A/Bs. Having the luxury of depth (the baltic sea) the risk of dogfighting is, i would think, neglectable. Thereby saving a ton of money and instead procure a proper transport aircraft instead of those 30 year old Hercs. At least my way of thinking.
Phew. Bit complicated. Switzerland originally was mulling upgrading the second tranche of F-5E they got (second tranche was 32 aircraft delivered in 1984). The problem is that this second tranche would not suffice to fill their now-decided structure with 3 F-5E sqns with 54 aircraft - meaning that they'd have to extend a hypothetical upgrade program to the somewhat older Tranche 1 aircraft, which was never planned.
Just some thoughts:
- Taking airframe integrity/aging into account
- Bearing the cost of system/electronics integration on their own
- Bearing the cost of weapon integration on their own
- Reduced commonality with allied countries equipment
- Lower level of reliability, higher maintenance costs
- Not getting the advantages of newer aircraft (reduced radar signature, efficiency, range, speed, agility, etc etc)
- Potentially less popular with the population of said country
the problem is your can never guarantee, for political as much as operational reasons, that you will not need to be in WVR to make the combat. thats why you need to make sure your fighters have the capability to be at least respectable in dogfights even if you don't expect to ever be in any. one of the key lessons of warfare is things never go as you expect anyway.
Right, take for instance the swiss: They want to replace 3 sqdns worth of F-5Es. Would it be better to upgrade computers/electronics, weapons and i suppose needed replacements of worn parts, or buy new aircraft off-the-shelves? Financially i guess the first option would be better. But then, its a really small country wich leads to higher possibillity of "dogfights" where the old F-5 most likely would loose. In this case, me personally, would think new Aircraft are advisable.
Other scenario: Sweden gets into NATO, does not upgrade any aircraft to the now being developed E/F-standard (Super-Gripen). But rather retains some 50 C/Ds and 100 A/Bs. Having the luxury of depth (the baltic sea) the risk of dogfighting is, i would think, neglectable. Thereby saving a ton of money and instead procure a proper transport aircraft instead of those 30 year old Hercs. At least my way of thinking.
Pros/cons?
Ehm. first: all platforms have limitations in growth, in other words you can't continue to upgrade a platform for eternity! second an airframe lifespan is around 8000 hours. so what ever you want or need, new platforms will be essential to purchase after 30 - 40 years.
Sweden will have 100 C/Ds no A/Bs and this upgrade is already funded. njot to mention the maintaince costs of old platforms.
When it comes to agility it is and will always be an important factor for military A/Cs. now we have off bore sight missiles with TVC that are able to do 40Gs so in that point of view its not priority. but for WVR fights, Flyshows, and overall ability together with speed will increase survivability and tactics rather than opposite.
