Latin American combat Aircrafts

[Eagle]

AS YOU KNOW, THERE AREN'T GREAT AND WELL-EQUIPED ARMED FORCES. ALL THE SUB CONTINENT IS A PACEFULL PLACE. BUT WE CAN SEE LOVELY BIRDS HERE...




Lockheed Martin F-16C Fighting Falcon (Chile)
http://www.airpower.at/news02/0207_f-16_chile_polen/chile.jpg


Northrop F-5E Tiger III+ (Chile)
http://66.49.192.121/wolphoto/chile_f5tigre15.jpg


Lockheed Martin F-16A Fighting Falcon (Venezuela)
http://www.plasticwings.hu/f16/venezuela2.jpg


Dassault Mirage 50 (Venezuela)
http://www.arrow-aviation.nl/Library/cruzex-pagina/MIR50-GR.JPG


Mikoyan Gurevic MiG-29 Fulcrum (Perú)
http://armoreddefense.com/v-web/gallery/albums/album44/Mig_29_FAP_0077_Courtesy_of_Groups_MSN_FF_AA_Peru_ 001.jpg


Dassault Mirage 2000P (Perú)
http://www.military.cz/france/air/Mirage_2000/images/mir2000peru.jpg


Mc Donnell Douglas A-4AR Fighting Hawk (Argentina)
http://www.hangardigital.com.ar/articulos/a4ar/a4ar_7.jpg


Dassault Super Etendard (Argentina)
http://www.scramble.nl/mil/8/argentina/gfx/photos/coan-orbat-sue.jpg

[Bluffcove]

Is the hawk a rip off of BAe or did we sell it to you?
I want aware we sold armed derivatives

EDIT iirc re: hawks - some went to the middle east, Jordan?

[BDL]

Is the hawk a rip off of BAe or did we sell it to you?
I want aware we sold armed derivatives

EDIT iirc re: hawks - some went to the middle east, Jordan?

Not the same Hawk mate - the Argentinians use the American A-4 Skyhawk, not the BAe Hawk, which has been sold to many many countries, including Jordan (IIRC)

[Bluffcove]

but MaccyD's rip off our aircraft what about their harrier? is it a production under license, or what?

[festamus]

The original Harrier was licence produced by McDonnell Douglas.

The Harrier II, an altogether more capable beast, was developed primarily by McDD in co-operation with BAE. The Pegasus remains Rolls Royce through and through, however.

[1000ydstare]

The McD Harrier is mainly ground support.

The RAF/FAA Harriers still retain a credible Air to Air capability. And are better for operating on non-prepared air sites.

[Firefly]

The McD Harrier is mainly ground support.

The RAF/FAA Harriers still retain a credible Air to Air capability. And are better for operating on non-prepared air sites.

Im not sure if there are any FAA Harriers left, they are phasing them out now.

[pdf27]

but MaccyD's rip off our aircraft what about their harrier? is it a production under license, or what?
<anorak>
Nope, it's a completely different design dating back to the early 1950s (first prototype flew in 1954). The BAe Hawk is something like 20 years newer.
</anorak>

[festamus]

The McD Harrier is mainly ground support.

The RAF/FAA Harriers still retain a credible Air to Air capability. And are better for operating on non-prepared air sites.

The RAF Harrier is the McDD/BAE Harrier II. And doesn't retain any more credible an Air-to-Air capability as Nimrod (which, like the RAF's Harrier, can hang AIM-9 Sidewinders) since it lacks radar and the AMRAAM capability of the FAA's Sea Harrier F/A.2 - which by the way is still an upgraded BAe Harrier rather than the McDD/BAE Harrier II.

I'm also not sure why the RAF's Harrier GR7 and 9 would be any better than the USMC's Harrier's for operating from non-prepared air sites. Although I'd be interested to learn!

[Eagle]

As BDL says, the Argentine Fighting Hawks are derivative of the A-4M Skyhawk II, but with an extensive modernized new systems.


About the british Harriers, I have the knowledge that only the Fleet Air Arm Sea Harriers have the capability of launching the AIM-120 missile, but someone told me that the Royal Navy is removing on service to these aircraft, and the Royal Navy won't have an on-board combat aircraft until the F-35 start... is this real?

[Crab_to_be]

As BDL says, the Argentine Fighting Hawks are derivative of the A-4M Skyhawk II, but with an extensive modernized new systems.


About the british Harriers, I have the knowledge that only the Fleet Air Arm Sea Harriers have the capability of launching the AIM-120 missile, but someone told me that the Royal Navy is removing on service to these aircraft, and the Royal Navy won't have an on-board combat aircraft until the F-35 start... is this real?

In the interests of me not having to go to the South Atlantic on an operational tour, I think we should keep schtum!

[festamus]

Well Crab, it is public domain, and in the interests of keeping my own private sector work backlog healthy and profitable, it's tempting to tell him! :P

[Firefly]

The McD Harrier is mainly ground support.

The RAF/FAA Harriers still retain a credible Air to Air capability. And are better for operating on non-prepared air sites.

The RAF Harrier is the McDD/BAE Harrier II. And doesn't retain any more credible an Air-to-Air capability as Nimrod (which, like the RAF's Harrier, can hang AIM-9 Sidewinders) since it lacks radar and the AMRAAM capability of the FAA's Sea Harrier F/A.2 - which by the way is still an upgraded BAe Harrier rather than the McDD/BAE Harrier II.

I'm also not sure why the RAF's Harrier GR7 and 9 would be any better than the USMC's Harrier's for operating from non-prepared air sites. Although I'd be interested to learn!

They arent, they are basically the same thing. No air attack radar etc.

[Firefly]

As BDL says, the Argentine Fighting Hawks are derivative of the A-4M Skyhawk II, but with an extensive modernized new systems.


About the british Harriers, I have the knowledge that only the Fleet Air Arm Sea Harriers have the capability of launching the AIM-120 missile, but someone told me that the Royal Navy is removing on service to these aircraft, and the Royal Navy won't have an on-board combat aircraft until the F-35 start... is this real?

In the interests of me not having to go to the South Atlantic on an operational tour, I think we should keep schtum!

Having done my falklands tour, its not the Sea harrier that you would have to worry about.

[Eagle]

More latin-american aircrafts



http://www.saorbats.com.ar/articulos/LmaasaAgo04/__hr_miragemod.jpg
Different classes of Mirage in Argentina.
The leader is a two-seat Mirage IIID. The Wingman number two, on the right of the leader, is an IAI Mirage V "Finger" (based on the Dagger) The Wingman number three, on the left of the leader, is a Dassault Mirage IIIE. The last Mirage is a Dassault Mirage V "Mara"


http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/attack/at63-i.jpg
Atack/Trainer AT-63 Pampa, Made in Argentina.


http://www.tropaselite.hpg.ig.com.br/brasil_amx_a1.JPG
Atack AMX, Made in Brazil, Brazilian Air Force


http://www.sci.fi/~fta/fab-mir3.jpg
Mirage IIIBR Brazilian Air Force


http://www.choiquehobbies.com.ar/revista/notas/mirf1/miragef1_ec01.jpg
Mirage F1, Equator Air Force


http://www.scramble.nl/mil/8/ecuador/gfx/photos/orbat-jaguar.jpg
Sepecat Jaguar, Equator Air Force


http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/kfir_p2.jpg
IAI Kfir, Colombian Air Force

[festamus]

The McD Harrier is mainly ground support.

The RAF/FAA Harriers still retain a credible Air to Air capability. And are better for operating on non-prepared air sites.

The RAF Harrier is the McDD/BAE Harrier II. And doesn't retain any more credible an Air-to-Air capability as Nimrod (which, like the RAF's Harrier, can hang AIM-9 Sidewinders) since it lacks radar and the AMRAAM capability of the FAA's Sea Harrier F/A.2 - which by the way is still an upgraded BAe Harrier rather than the McDD/BAE Harrier II.

I'm also not sure why the RAF's Harrier GR7 and 9 would be any better than the USMC's Harrier's for operating from non-prepared air sites. Although I'd be interested to learn!

They arent, they are basically the same thing. No air attack radar etc.

Well I did wonder since while I know they are to all intents and purposes the same airframe, I know the Yanks have been messing around making their Harrier II's into "Harrier II Plus" - which includes adding the same radar as that on the F/A-18 Hornet... and also allows AMRAAM to be used.

Maybe something for the MoD to consider if the new carriers and/or JSF get ditched?

[Firefly]

The McD Harrier is mainly ground support.

The RAF/FAA Harriers still retain a credible Air to Air capability. And are better for operating on non-prepared air sites.

The RAF Harrier is the McDD/BAE Harrier II. And doesn't retain any more credible an Air-to-Air capability as Nimrod (which, like the RAF's Harrier, can hang AIM-9 Sidewinders) since it lacks radar and the AMRAAM capability of the FAA's Sea Harrier F/A.2 - which by the way is still an upgraded BAe Harrier rather than the McDD/BAE Harrier II.

I'm also not sure why the RAF's Harrier GR7 and 9 would be any better than the USMC's Harrier's for operating from non-prepared air sites. Although I'd be interested to learn!

They arent, they are basically the same thing. No air attack radar etc.

Well I did wonder since while I know they are to all intents and purposes the same airframe, I know the Yanks have been messing around making their Harrier II's into "Harrier II Plus" - which includes adding the same radar as that on the F/A-18 Hornet... and also allows AMRAAM to be used.

Maybe something for the MoD to consider if the new carriers and/or JSF get ditched?

Not in pipeline as far as I know, too many pesos etc......

[festamus]

Ah well, what do we care if even the Spanish Navy makes the Royal Navy look underequipped? Wait a minute...

[Eagle]

I don't think so.

Only talking about the retirement of the Sea Harriers.