Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 13 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 384

Thread: Serbian Air Force has started lookig in to new fighters

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    148

    Serbian Air Force has started lookig in to new fighters

    Serbian AF has started looking in to possibility of purchasing new fighter aircrafts.
    According to Air Force Chief they have approached manufacturers of F-16 , F-18 , MiG-29 , Typhoon , Rafale , Gripen and Sukhoi ( article does not specify type)

    http://www.politika.rs/rubrike/tema-...avione.sr.html
    Last edited by GrM; 7th March 2010 at 08:39.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,906
    Quote Originally Posted by GrM View Post
    Serbian AF has started looking in to possibility of purchasing new fighter aircrafts.
    According to Air Force Chief the have approached manufacturers of F-16 , F-18 , MiG-29 , Typhoon , Rafale , Gripen and Sukhoi ( article does not specify type)

    http://www.politika.rs/rubrike/tema-...avione.sr.html
    Well thats pretty much everybody then!

    Looking at the list:

    F16, very good choice but politics plays against it. Probably unaffordable as well.

    F/A18, probably too much of an aircraft for their needs and again politics plays against it. Probably unaffordable as well.

    Mig29, highly attractive due to prior experience and they can probably get them for a favourable cost. On the other hand the still relatively short overhaul periods and the attraction of the bigger Sukhoi plays against it.

    Typhoon, too expensive and like the Super Hornet too much aircraft.

    Rafale, too expensive also like the Super Hornet and Eurofighter too much aircraft.

    Gripen, excellent affordable choice and there are plenty of low mileage examples sitting in Sweden.

    Sukhoi Su27/30, certainly attractive with lots of capability for the price but the operational cost of a large twin engine fighter is probably outside the defence budget.

    In conclusion I think they would rank the top three for purchase as:

    1)Mig29 variant. (albeit I think they Gripen is a better more affordable to operate choice).
    2)Gripen
    3)Sukhoi Su27/30 variant. (I think it would be too costly to operate but its more of a contender then the other Euro canards or the US types).

    The other choices are frankly either beyond their means or too expensive to operate.
    Last edited by Fedaykin; 6th March 2010 at 21:18.
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Sydney NSW AU
    Posts
    497
    Meh... there is no money to "purchase" anything.. They have been issuing RFIs isnce 2004... If they could lease dozen unused Fulcrums like those X Algerian SMTs, or some second hand Gripens/Falcons ... it would be a minor miracle.

    On a more strategic note, spending billion $ on 20-24 aircraft , that would get swatted down like flies in any confrontation with NATO (as we are now 100% surrounded by NATO members ) is utterly pointless. Far better option is to get 10-12 JF17 of the type Pakistan is getting with western equipment. Heck FA50 would be ideal if S.Koerans ever get it developed.

    10-12 JF17 would cost less then 5-6 Gripens/MiGs and offer not that much less in capability. SrAF would have "new" AC for maintaining training and tradition over next decade or so, after which they might decide if economic recovery occurs , to expand that capability with more worthwhile articles. Patrolling the sky and training pilots is something that JF17 will do just fine.

    Now the remaining 80% of that billion dollars you divide and purchase 10-15 batteries of BUK 2ME, and 15-20 Batteries of SPYDER ... and then you have something to seriously worry anybody intruding into your airspace... Which is precisely why our American overlords would never let their puppets in Belgrade contemplate such silly idea. Much better to spend money you dont have, on aircraft you dont need , for achieving squat all in defense capability.


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Posts
    741
    Sincerely, in their place I`d ditch western types altogether and pick the Chinese FC-1 or even better, the J-10. A 72-100 aircraft fleet of the J-10 ought to cost as much as a much smaller number of western fighters.... This would at the same time pack a major "punch" with the consequent regional geopolitical clout.

    What do you think?

    regards

    Hammer
    _____________________________________________
    www.basemilitar.com.br
    Brazilian Aviation & Defence e-Magazine
    Rio de Janeiro, Brasil

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    917
    Nopse, Gripen is what Serbia needs, (Any US equipbent schould be outof the question). And given our countries rather good/good relations Im sure a fair price could be negotiated. Throw in two or thre SAAB-EriEye and Serbia can once again dominate the Balcans (save Greece. Wich is an allie anyway).

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Sydney NSW AU
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by Hammer View Post
    Sincerely, in their place I`d ditch western types altogether and pick the Chinese FC-1 or even better, the J-10. A 72-100 aircraft fleet of the J-10 ought to cost as much as a much smaller number of western fighters.... This would at the same time pack a major "punch" with the consequent regional geopolitical clout.

    What do you think?

    regards

    Hammer
    72-100??? Why??

    J-10b will cost as much as Gripen or MiG29K

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Sydney NSW AU
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by Griffon39 View Post
    Nopse, Gripen is what Serbia needs, (Any US equipbent schould be outof the question). And given our countries rather good/good relations Im sure a fair price could be negotiated. Throw in two or thre SAAB-EriEye and Serbia can once again dominate the Balcans (save Greece. Wich is an allie anyway).
    Gripen is designed by Sweden,whose defense strategy and position is very simmilar to Serbia. Deffending against large adversary, against huge numbers, rugged, take off from roads etc,,, all things Serbia would value.

    ... However Gripen sale can be blocked by US at a whim... and Serbia would have to rely on Western AAMs ... I do not see Aim120 or Meteor ever allowed into Serbia. MBDA MICA is about advanced as Serbia has hope of getting in terms of BVR.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    917
    Yes, you got some perfectly good points ther. About the missiles though, i dont think it wouldn bee to hard to convert Gripen for Israeli and South African missiles. The engine is trickier though. But Serbia actually has a great force of skilled engineers and scientists, so with som luck (and covert assistance) it schouldnt be totally impossible for them to reverse engineer it. Serbs are pretty clever people. (And if that fails, se what Russia, China and France has to offer).

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Sydney NSW AU
    Posts
    497
    Comments on the news site listed make very interesting reading... Most people are against the idea, and seem to prefer purchasing small amount (6-8) of cheep light jets like JF17 or second hand gripen, only sufficient for Serbia to fullfill its international obligations for control of airspace.. most people want money spent on Air Deffence... i guess they remember last decade.

    Few funny comments as well ... i quote

    "We need to build then new fortified hangars... so we can hide them next time we get bombed"

    "24??? 240 more like... considering how loaded with cash we are"

    my favorite

    "Aircraft???... Nooo...we need to be purchasing new Destroyers , frigates and aircraft carriers....and send them up and down Danube.."

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    917
    Quote Originally Posted by DJ. View Post

    J-10b will cost as much as Gripen or MiG29K
    Plus it will be more than a few years before Serbia could lay their hands on the first one, home in Belgrade. Until that Chengdu will bussy around the clock to assamble J-10s for the PLAAF and PAF.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Sydney NSW AU
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by Griffon39 View Post
    Yes, you got some perfectly good points ther. About the missiles though, i dont think it wouldn bee to hard to convert Gripen for Israeli and South African missiles. The engine is trickier though. But Serbia actually has a great force of skilled engineers and scientists, so with som luck (and covert assistance) it schouldnt be totally impossible for them to reverse engineer it. Serbs are pretty clever people. (And if that fails, se what Russia, China and France has to offer).
    ... Even at the height of Yugoslav airospace industry.. Engines were always imported or build under licence. If Sweeden could not develop indigenous engine... well need i say more.

    Personally I do not think Americans would bother blocking sale of dozen Gripens to Serbia... but they would not allow any advanced avionics or missiles.

    Another very interesting comment from the site above

    "Use the money to "purchase" 20-24 US Senators ... far more beneficial for our seccurity" hahaha cant say i do not agree.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    574
    MiG-35 (or a variant of it) will be good. I am sure the Russians will make a special price for them.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Sydney NSW AU
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by UAZ View Post
    MiG-35 (or a variant of it) will be good. I am sure the Russians will make a special price for them.


  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,561
    Quote Originally Posted by DJ. View Post
    I am also convinced the Russians will do it. Slavic brotherhood and all.
    Love Planes, Live Planes

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    148
    I have to agree that some types are not realistic option.

    Most likely it will come down to F-16 , Gripen and MiG-35 .



    However purchase of the aircrafts is also closely connected to politics.

    If , lets say France , wants to make political investment in Serbia , I am sure that even Rafale would become realistic option.

    It would be good for France to say that they have yet another export success ....that would increase chance of selling aircrafts to other potential customers.

    It would bring political influence , because Serbia would relay on logistical support from French aerospace industry.

    Because Serbia will never be in position to buy such a equipment for "cash on delivery" it would require France and Serbia to come to some sort of deal where money would be made by both sides trough other trade ventures.



    Rarely sale of weapons is straight forward business and it is closely connected to the politics of the day.



    Who would think that one day France will sell warships to Russia.



    Taking all of that in to account I think all options are on the table.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Schimatari, Greece
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
    Well thats pretty much everybody then!

    Looking at the list:

    F16, very good choice but politics plays against it. Probably unaffordable as well.
    Why do you say that? I think it's quite the opposite, the only preventing factor being *maybe* people's disapproval.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,875
    actually, there two most probable options are either

    - 2nd (or even 3rd) hand F-16s which they may have for almost nothing.. and the US would secure, sort of, that airspace by being able to monitor quite a number of things they get.. just in case

    - Mig-29 variants, maybe even the ones Lebanon was offered for free... lebanon would prefer helicopters instead, and if russia has no real use of these, they can easily get rid of them in favor of serbia. Just as for used F-16s, the initial cost would be very low (if any) and for serbia's politicians, it brings several advantages over the US equipment: population may appreciate more after the events of the 90's, the supply wouldn't be controlled by the US in a way it could be if western equipment was used, and, of course, they already have the type and most infrastructures to maintain them (they even maintained other countries' migs before wars in the balkans) the mig is also better suited to the defence structure that relies havily on "off-airfield" operations... during wars, migs were spread all over the country, which they wouldn't have been able if they'd had F-16s, for example

    the gripen may sound interesting but, from the price standpoint, they probably wouldn't be able to propose anything comparable to "free" aircraft

    rafale, while costing a lot, may be interesting not as whole aircraft but rather as source of partnership. During the 1980's, Yugoslavia started developing their new aircraft and they partnered with the french for it. It was to be a light aircraft, one engine (same as the rafale) and overall shape was quite similar. As the chances are simply nonexistent that serbia gets the fundings to buy rafales (unless they find a huuuuge oil reserve under their soil, but then, chances are NATO would find a new interest in "restoring democracy" or something similar overthere ), dassault and the french government may find interesting to make a partnership to help develop it, integrating some of the systems of the rafale into that airframe. With lesser capabilities than the rafale, that may be an interesting way to create links, have a customer for products like the engines, avionics, missiles etc... and make money selling equipment for serbias aircraft as well as for those they may export into countries where the rafale wouldn't stand a chance anyway, while for serbia it may mean a sort of "independence" with a domestic modern aircraft type tailored for their needs, while in the same type it would create new jobs and, eventually, generate benefits from possible export markets. Such aircraft may be developed quite rapidly and with costs that aren't too high (integrating existing equipments into an airframe that, aerodynamically, is relatively close to the rafale's one)

    Su-27, too costly... and what use would serbia have of a fighter with such range? two most distant points of serbia are about 200 miles apart (north/south) and some 100 miles in the direction east/west. Even the mig29 with its notoriously low range can go in full afterburner from one part to another and still have some time to remain airborne left.

    F-18, way too costly.. unless the US propose as a "gift" a few old and rusty ex-NAVY C models, there's no chance serbia finds the money to buy (and maintain) some

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    100
    No. Most probably it will be a lease of a batch of Gripens until they finish the development of NA with the French.

    NA (Novi Avion translatoin: New Aeroplane) Link: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showp...9&postcount=22

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    49
    That kind of outcome is in realm of imagination.

    Regarding NA project, France should be very sorry, because they did not see potential of that type of airplane. During the 80's France was still in cold war dreams, not realizing existence of world wide market for non WW3 military airplanes. Yet, Yugoslavia as neutral state, and weapons exporter, seemed aware of business opportunity.

    After the collapse of SU, dessault had been left with very capable, but very expensive aircraft, in category where France as a seller compete with the most powerful states and fighters (and it self- EuroFigter program) in the world. And out there's only few potential buyers.
    Almost a lost battle.

    If Dessault had Yugoslav or France made NA type, today they would be in very different $ status.


    Quote Originally Posted by DJ. View Post
    "Use the money to "purchase" 20-24 US Senators ... far more beneficial for our seccurity"
    Regarding national security, that's always smart investment .
    Last edited by StAndrea; 7th March 2010 at 13:23.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    100
    The first step is to build a traning aircraft something like a Korean T-50 Golden Eagle, that would be sold to France (as a replacment for Alpha Jet) and other countries.

    The second step would be to build a fighter in the Gripen/Gripen NG kategory but much cheaper.That was the deal between France and Yugoslavia, but would stil work today.

    It would use French radar,avionics and engine, so it's a win-win situation between France and Serbia. Serbia gets to produce and sell aeroplanes and France gets to sell radar and engine thru NA. It would also lover the price of the Rafal.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Acatomic View Post
    No. Most probably it will be a lease of a batch of Gripens until they finish the development of NA with the French.

    NA (Novi Avion translatoin: New Aeroplane) Link: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showp...9&postcount=22
    Serbia will not be able to develop anything more advanced than the Lasta within the next 20 years or so. What they can dream of, at the most is a squadron or two of decent second hand jets. Such as Mig 29s, Gripens or F-16s. That they would start developing their own fighters are pure fantasies.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Schimatari, Greece
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by StAndrea View Post
    After the collapse of SU, dessault had been left with very capable, but very expensive aircraft, in category where France as a seller compete with the most powerful states and fighters (and it self- EuroFigter program) in the world. And out there's only few potential buyers.
    Almost a lost battle.
    Not really. After the collapse of SU France had really one very capable aircraft, but that was not Rafale, that was Mirage 2000 and its offspring, Mirage 2000-5/9. The problem was it did not secure enough customers so it had minimal chances for development, so its production was shut down as early as 2003. Sadly for the M2K, it was, just like Rafale, too expensive in comparison to its equivalents, such as MiG-29 and F-16.

    Untill then, Rafale was not seriously offered in international markets, because it was not ready (main reason it lost early contests).

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    100
    They will do it with France, not by themselfs. They say that they can do it, but the problem is in lack of money.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,875
    Quote Originally Posted by swedishcat View Post
    Serbia will not be able to develop anything more advanced than the Lasta within the next 20 years or so. What they can dream of, at the most is a squadron or two of decent second hand jets. Such as Mig 29s, Gripens or F-16s. That they would start developing their own fighters are pure fantasies.
    it's not about "starting to develop".. they started before, it would be "taking over" the studies that were done previously and they wouldn't be alone in that area since the french were involved already at the time.

    If you simply look at that airframe you can see the commonality with the rafale... there were yugoslav engineers and french ones working together on it... if there was the will, they'd be able to produce that thing, and it wouldn't cost as much as a complete development of a new aircraft, and could probably be done in a matter of 4-5 years, since it would use "off the shelf" equipments already developed for the rafale as well as initial studies from before wars in the balkans

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    148
    Unless France wants to finance entire project , and I do not see that happening , NA project will never become reality . UTVA , the manufacturer of Lasta 95 can barley make that aircraft , let alone 4+ gen combat aircraft . It will take at least next 15 - 20 years to reach level of technical excellence that would allow Serbia Aerospace Industry to start thinking about such advance project.

    Maximum that can be expected from local defence industry is modernisation of G-4 , airframe life extension of J-22 , production of Lasta 95 , cruise missile , laser / tv guided ammunition and UAV .

    Rest is pure fantasy and should not even enter any serious discussion .

    As far as procurement of new combat aircraft is concerned MiG-35 has best chances .Support infrastructure already exists , ground personnel and pilots are fairly familiar with hardware so staying with MiG's would be logical choice . Best price / performance for Serbian Air Force .

    One has to take in to account that Air Force Chief would like to have minimum 10 to 12 but ideally 20 to 24 new airframes ....going with MiG might just alow him to do that.

    Since Mig-29/35 is twin engine aircraft, to fly it it cost twice as much in fuel consumption compared to single engine aircraft ( and fuel availability is big issue in SAF) At the moment pilots are doing 25 to 30 hours of flying per year and target is 80 hours , so going with aircraft that is cheaper to operate from fuel consumption point of view is also logical choice so I think that JAS-39 and F-16 will be seriously examined as a possible 2nd and 3rd best option.

    Rest of the aircrafts are simply to expensive to buy and to expensive to operate .

    Suggestions like buy Chinese equipment , then go to Israel and modernise them is again too expensive so that will not happen.

    In the end I think MiG route will be taken , but JAS-39 will be seriously examined. I remember talking to JAS-39 demo pilot at Farnborough , and he told me that SAAB would be more than happy to talk with Serbia if such request is received from Serbian government , and I would imagine LM would be very happy to talk , since Serbian AF pilots had chance to test drive F-16 in Italy.

    Su series is to big and expensive , so is Rafale and Typhoon.

    To be honest , best choice would be to rent few MiG and wait till PAK-FA is available and if politics and price is right go with such option .If you are spending money on something that you will use for next 30 40 years , and you can not afford more then 10 - 12 airframes it would be better to wait for next 10 years , work on improving economy and buy some serious piece of aircraft that will add significant fire power and capability.

    We have seen when Air Force with few modern aircrafts goes against ultra modern air force ......it is one sided contest ....so go with something that can seriously rattle oppositions cage and serve as deterrent.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Schimatari, Greece
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by GrM View Post
    Since Mig-29/35 is twin engine aircraft, to fly it it cost twice as much in fuel consumption compared to single engine aircraft ( and fuel availability is big issue in SAF)
    Being double engined doesn't have anything to do with fuel consumption, the F-5, Jaguar, Ching Kuo are all double engined, but this doesn't mean they suck up fuel to no avail. It has to do with the engine itself.

    Su series is to big and expensive , so is Rafale and Typhoon.

    To be honest , best choice would be to rent few MiG and wait till PAK-FA is available and if politics and price is right go with such option .
    The first sentence vastly contradicts the second. So the Su-30 is too big and expensive but the PAK FA is not?

    We have seen when Air Force with few modern aircrafts goes against ultra modern air force ......it is one sided contest ....so go with something that can seriously rattle oppositions cage and serve as deterrent.
    It will be kind of hard for Serbia to get attacked by NATO again, especially if Serbia is part of it, as is its goal.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by HAWX ace View Post
    Being double engined doesn't have anything to do with fuel consumption, the F-5, Jaguar, Ching Kuo are all double engined, but this doesn't mean they suck up fuel to no avail. It has to do with the engine itself.



    The first sentence vastly contradicts the second. So the Su-30 is too big and expensive but the PAK FA is not?



    It will be kind of hard for Serbia to get attacked by NATO again, especially if Serbia is part of it, as is its goal.

    Applications
    F-15 Eagle
    F-15E Strike Eagle
    F-16 Fighting Falcon
    X-47B Pegasus
    [edit] Specifications (F100-PW-229)
    General characteristics
    Type: Afterburning turbofan
    Length: 191 in (4,851 mm)
    Diameter: 46.5 in (1,181 mm)
    Dry weight: 3,740 lb (1,696 kg)
    Components
    Compressor: Axial compressor with 3 fan and 10 compressor stages
    Bypass ratio: 0.36:1
    Turbine: 2 low-pressure and 2 high-pressure stages
    Performance
    Maximum Thrust:

    17,800 lbf (79.1 kN) military thrust
    29,160 lbf (129.6 kN) with afterburner
    Overall pressure ratio: 32:1
    Specific fuel consumption:

    Military thrust: 0.76 lb/(lbf·h) (77.5 kg/(kN·h))
    Full afterburner: 1.94 lb/(lbf·h) (197.8 kg/(kN·h))
    Thrust-to-weight ratio: 7.8:1 (76.0 N/kg)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_&_Whitney_F100

    Here are some examples: Flying gas-guzzling bomber B-52 burns about 3300 gallon per hour, flying gas stations KC-135 and KC-10 (aerial refueling tankers) burn on average 2650 and 2070 gallons per hour respectively. Famous F-15 and F-16 fighter aircrafts burn about 1580 and 800 gallons per hour respectively.

    http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29925

    Su-27/30/33/35 and so on are to expensive at the momment.
    In 10 years economy will improve ( I hope) and then PAK-FA might be an option.

    Serbia will not become NATO , it has been decided to be neutral ...that is why Serbia is looking to maintain Air Force with reasonable fire power for long time to come .People are against becoming NATO member and it will be political suicide for any politician that directs Serbia in that direction.
    Last edited by GrM; 7th March 2010 at 17:59.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3,476
    how about 20 Pak-fa's to be license built in Serbia as the Pakfavic? :diablo:

    well what will Serbia's foreign policy be?

    does it plan to fight for Kosovo? does it plan to expand its territory into neighbors like Bosnia?

    does Serbia want to join NATO? Maybe some F-15s and F-16s be good? they did a good job on the Serbian military and their MiG-29s!

    If not, i don't see a need for something very high performance. Serbia is now land locked and its neighbors are more or less peaceful, or impotent like the Albanians. Some 15-20 Yak-130s and reliance on the Serbian domestic industry for other trainers is good enough. Better for Serbia to invest on more ground based anti-aircraft missiles.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    148
    As sarcastic as you might be ..no Serbia will never assemble something as complex as that ...it would be stupid.

    As far as being land locked , surrounded with NATO , impotent as Albania.....few facts....
    Serbia even now has one of most modern and best trained armed forces in that region , especially when it comes to ground forces.
    http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n212028

    Serbia has no intention expanding in to anything.
    As a matter of fact Serbia is better without Kosovo , it was just financial drain on state resources.

    However nothing last forever...all of these alliances and empires sooner or later come to an end ...so will NATO one day .What will come instead of it , your guess is as good as mine .....new pan Europe alliance , chaos ...who knows .

    That is why Serbia is neutral (among other things ) and that is why it will maintain credible military force like peace loving Switzerland ...you never know what will happen in 10 , 20 or 30 years time.

    As far as your reference to 1999 war , it is clear you do not know details of that war , and why MiG-29 performed badly .To understand you would need to understand Serbian politics , in detail , between 1991 and 1999 ....relation between state and military and state and police .....who was more important and who was better financed , who was in command of Air Force and how those people where thinking , was it more important to kiss presidents rear end or to stand ground and get what was necessary to defend country , make sure that units receive all training and spare parts that where necessary and so on and so on ....I have no intention to educate you , it would take too much of my time to do that.
    Last edited by GrM; 7th March 2010 at 19:54.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by HAWX ace View Post
    Not really. After the collapse of SU France had really one very capable aircraft, but that was not Rafale, that was Mirage 2000 and its offspring, Mirage 2000-5/9. The problem was it did not secure enough customers so it had minimal chances for development, so its production was shut down as early as 2003. Sadly for the M2K, it was, just like Rafale, too expensive in comparison to its equivalents, such as MiG-29 and F-16.

    Until then, Rafale was not seriously offered in international markets, because it was not ready (main reason it lost early contests).
    Well, I was writing about NA as a project and an airframe in development, like Rafale was in that time. Thus very important for future of both airspace industries, and relevant for today's story and market. NA cannot be made in Serbia, it's been 25 years from start of that project their engineers and technicians are not working for military or they are retired or dead. And NATO had very successful reorientation programs for high tech weapons engineers in eastern Europe after their economies and companies fell to pieces, insuring they will not work for third parties.

    Nevertheless Mirage 2000 is sadly very good example of inherent problems of France military airspace program. It's no doubt machine with supreme characteristic, but it's sales failed to cache it's practical value. I will not go into this issue making thread in thread, I'll just say, very bad business model, slow adaptability, non competitive price.

    Military airplane in class of Gripen but cheaper, supported by France as co-seller and Franch technology, sold by Yugoslavia as neutral country (insuring some hostile markets) probably would have been very good seller.

    On this topic, my opinion is, they wont buy non of these planes in next ~7-10 years unless someone give them planes for free. But that will not happen.
    Russia certainly will not give them discount (obvious from recent Mig 29b "upgrade" business), and if USA didn't give cheap F-16s to their NATO members on Balkans, why would they give them to Serbia ?
    Last edited by StAndrea; 7th March 2010 at 19:56.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES