Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Philippines Defense Forces Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
How about Czech attack aircraft US tech combo?
Topic Started: Oct 17 2006, 01:53 AM (1,142 Views)
possible
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
http://pdff.sytes.net/index.php?showtopic=3477&st=30

possible
Sep 18 2006, 09:10 AM
However, there are two very significant drawbacks going against the AMX-ATA. One of these, ironically, is cost:

Quote:
 
Again, the AMX project can be seen to have been a technological success for Embraer, demonstrated by the fact by the fact that they were the lead partner in the new AMX-T model, of which 8 were sold to Venezuela in 2000. However, the fact that this was the first export order for any of the AMXs illustrates the commercial failure of the plane, clearly a significant factor in Embraer’s troubles in the early 90s. Kapstein (1991) notes that the unit cost of the AMX doubled from its original $10m, and that even the Brazilian Air Force were lukewarm about the project, preferring an off-the-shelf fighter.

http://www.ecaar.org/Articles/SA%20Papers/Perlofreeman.pdf

$20 million per AMX as of 1991, and that was for the single-seater! In fact, in some periodicals, the unit cost of the AMX-ATA is quoted at an incredible $30 million!

The other knock against the AMX is its elderly engine design: the Rolls-Royce Spey is a 1960s technology product originally intended for the RAF’s Phantom jets and thus cannot be considered a match in terms of reliability, efficiency, and logistic support for newer designs like the A-50’s widely-used GE F404. Even the manufacturers of the AMX acknowledged this deficiency when they offered the South Africans a re-engined ‘Super’ AMX fitted with the powerplant of the Typhoon (EJ 200), with the caveat that the expense for this upgrade be shouldered by the buyer! Which explains why the AMX lost to the Saab Gripen and the BAe Hawk in that well-known South African arms procurement contract.


War. What is it good for?--James Brown

What's love got to do with it?--Tina Turner

Only the intelligent are brave.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
phichanad
Trainee
[ *  * ]
i'd better stick with T-50 / A-50 Golden Eagle....probably better than L-159s...and at least coming from a very close ally.
Posted Image

Makati City, Metro Manila - the place to be!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
page mcney
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Mercenary
Oct 29 2006, 04:40 AM
The L-159A and tandem seat B versions are good Light Attack Jet/Trainers but the Phil. A.F. would then have to buy both to be effective. The Philippine Armed Forces have publically stated in the past years that any aircraft they procure has to meet a cruical requirement. The aircraft in question is only operated by the parent nation that being the Czech Republic. The Phil. A. F. only wants to procure aircraft that are in current operational status with at least three different nations including the parent nation the aircraft is manufactured in period.

Instead of procuring obsolete tandem seat L-39Z ALBATROSS Light Attack Jet Trainers there are much better options such as new tandem seat, radar equipped AMX-Ts which have recently been bought by Venezula. Other good options to consider are ex. Royal New Zealand tandem seat MB-339C's which are Maverick ASM capable or newly built MB-339FD both the latter possess a 4,000-Lb weapon's loadout compared to the Albatross's 2,400-Lbs.

Tandem seat, radar equipped, highly UpGraded TA-4SU SUPER SKYHAWKS from surplus from Singapore's Air Force or even non-radar TA-4J SKYHAWKS from U.S. stocks would be a good investment.

as per other threads (see NZ to sell A-4s and MB-339s) i supported the proposal that our AFP/AF should procure the MB-339s, because this aircraft is being operated by more than a dozen countries and some have been used in their short wars with their neighbor (especially in africa)... this is a good aircraft, both for light attack/ jet trainer role. if our AF should select a good and versatile aircraft, then the MB-339 is a good contender. as i said before, if the AF uses such aircraft, it must have, atleast, eight (8) units for training and sixteen (16) units for light attack/ASM capable and/or limited air defence capabilty.

then again, why is the AFP/AF doesn't include this option for their modernization program? as i said before, the AF has vast option in terms of a versatile aircraft, economically priced, less to maintain. why is the MB-339 is not included?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Philippine Air Force · Next Topic »
Add Reply