what about the buying of second hand fighters?

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 30

I wrote in order to comment and hearing your opinion about the tendency developing in our countries, at least in mine, of
refurbishing old fighters often second hand ones instead of buying new hardware. I think examples are paramount, here in
Spain we have second hand Mirage F-1 from France and Qatar and
second hand F-18 from the US Navy and Marines. Now Italy is
considering even second hand Mig-29. My opinion on the subject is that the money should be employed in accelerating the Euroghigter program and that the second hand buying is simply
a simptom of bad political management.

Original post

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 9

RE: what about the buying of second hand fighters?

Eurofighter will not enter service untill 2008 or something (in Italy). That's why the Italian Governement is thinking about leasing (not buying) British F3's Tornado's. I never heard something like buying Mig 29's (although i don't say you are not right). The same with Poland : they are now LEASING F16's (without MLU) from Belgium. If Poland wants to become a member of NATO : they have to agree with NATO standards, and those aren't Mig's, but F16 or any other western aircraft. So it would be a very stupid decision of Italy to buy Mig 29's.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 794

RE: what about the buying of second hand fighters?

Well, if you take a look at a refurbished MiG-21-93, for example, the plane is almost as capable as early MiG-29As (delivered to India, Iraq, Yugoslavia and similars). Put a modern radar, targeting and navigational equipment as well as modern weapons into a 20 - or more years - old plane, refurbish its wings, replace perhaps several spares, and it's like a new one.

So where's the problem? Spain is waiting for the EF2000 - just like Italy and others - for some 20 years already. The question of getting that Typhon II into service is not that of the money (more than enough has been spent already for it, don't you agree), but that of politics. In the meantime, second-hand F/A-18s and Mirage F.1s are OK.

If said that Poland should chose F-16s because it's in the NATO now, then the same should also be said for quite a number of other members and start with finally scraping the EF2000/Typhon program ;-): neither the UK, nor Germany or Spain and Italy are flying F-16s. I think its called market economy or so: if somebody is offering better deal, everybody will go for it (and, by the way, German MiG-29s are quite asked for because of their "agressor" capabilities, so it's not bad if there are further MiG-29s in the NATO).

In order to maintain the numbers, older planes are quite OK. Argentina and Brazil did that with their Daggers, Skyhawks, F-5s and Mirages. Venecuelans are flying refurbished and modernized types almost exclusively. Pakistanis also bought older Mirages from France and let others be modernized there. These planes are some of the most potent weapons of the PAF now (especially because of their PGM-capabilities, which are so "en vogue" these days). Just to mention some.

I actually don't quite understand why isn't this market for
"second-hand" aircraft even much more prominent.

RE: what about the buying of second hand fighters?

a beautifull example is the F-16MLU. 20 year old basic F-16A's have now the same capabilities as the newest F-16C block50.
And offcourse upgrading gives us the chance to see the older aircraft longer in active service. Admit it ; a phantom, jaguar, aardvark and other starfighters, those are the real jets who let our hearts bounce harder.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 30

RE: what about the buying of second hand fighters?

I can quite understand what you are saying and i´m also moved for "classic" aircraft but I was talking about 2025 and
not 1965. The advances in materials, aerodinamics, engines and
above all computing capabilities both in the designing and in
the airborne arena spoke for themselves; in a serious future
battlefield old weapons have no posibility of survival and
that´s a fact.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 30

RE: what about the buying of second hand fighters?

I can quite understand what you are saying and i´m also moved for "classic" aircraft but I was talking about 2025 and
not 1965. The advances in materials, aerodinamics, engines and
above all computing capabilities both in the designing and in
the airborne arena spoke for themselves; in a serious future
battlefield old weapons have no posibility of survival and
that´s a fact.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 78

RE: what about the buying of second hand fighters?

The reason the second hand market for combat jets is not booming, is because even though the airframe itself represents a small portion of the cost of an aircraft, maintaining it's airworthiness can eat up most of the maintenance cost, both in terms of money and manhours. A wing spar or airframe barrel can only last so long before it needs major rebuilding or replacing. That's assuming you can get the parts or your country has the capability to produce them.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 794

RE: what about the buying of second hand fighters?

LAST EDITED ON 24-Aug-00 AT 10:43 PM (GMT)[p]The point is, Mik, that new aircraft cost from at least USD 30 millions upwards. At least 90% of air forces worldwide cannot afford this any more, but they can afford to buy or refurbish their older F-5s, F-4s, A-4s and similars, at up to USD 5 to 7 per example, and then spend further 1 million/aircraft per year. In using them for further 10 or 15 years, even at this prices, this is cheaper than buying new planes. So, I don't consider costs as that much problematic.

Spare parts for such aircraft as F-5s or F-4s are available all around the world: there are many companies which are producing them now (including some in Israel, Singapore or Iran, for example). Almost the same is the case with F-16s. There are also enough very good programs for upgrades with very modern radars and other sensors/avionics, as well as better engines. These are also offered by many different companies around the world, so nobody is dependable on one single suplier.

And, what kind of air-to-air weapons are planes like F-4F ICE, or Kurnass 2000, or similars - for example - using? AIM-120 AMRAAM, the same as USD 100 million/piece F-22 or EF2000.... The only diference would be in the close combat, but, if using apropriate tactics, this shouldn't be a problem. And as regarding the use of "intelligent" air-to-ground weapons, there are even less problems.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 30

RE: what about the buying of second hand fighters?

I wrote this specially to reply to Tom. I agree with you in the economics but I was talking about "important" first rate states
and I think you cannot face big reponsabilities without spending big money. As about the weapons they are equally expensive installed in both newer and older planes but obviously a new plane with for instance twice the computing capability and much
more modern sensors and sistems will make much better use of them.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 794

RE: what about the buying of second hand fighters?

LAST EDITED ON 29-Aug-00 AT 11:38 AM (GMT)[p]Hi,
I understand your arguments for "important" states.

The problem with buying new or refurbishing older aircraft is something you'll actually find everywhere: its correct that "important" NATO air forces are the largest and best equiped of the world, but 95% of air forces on the world are not in the NATO. Furthermore, it is well known that even many NATO air forces have their problems with small budgets.

There is certainly a large market now for new combat aircraft (at least some 4000 of them in the next 20 years), foremost in the Europe, Middle East and Far East. But, as said, that is in the next 20 years. In the meantime, most of the air forces will have to do with the equipment at hand, and that means they will have to modernize, refurbish, rebuild etc. their aircraft.

Either that, or some company will finally be able to have the stamina of Northorp in the 50s and 60s and build a new simple and "lighteweight" fighter for its own money, the kind of F-5 was. Not even Russians are doing this any more, and there will be no new planes the kind of MiG-21 or MiG-23.

So, in my eyes, for most of the "not-so-important" ;-) and a good part of "important" air forces there is no other way, but to put new equipment into their old aircraft, and continue to use them for the several years more. Even if this means, as you correctly mentioned, that they have to buy combat systems (avionics, navigational aids, comm equipment, radars, weapons etc.) at the same prices as they would pay for them when buying new aircraft, and put them into old airframes: the price is still lower!

After all, just some simple questions: what to hell can a new F-22, or X-32/35 do (except operating under "stealth" conditions) what an 25-years old F-14 or F-16 cannot? Supercruise? "Increased" maneuverabiliy? Sinthetic-aperture radar? Simplier avionics and maintenance procedures?

Sorry, just put this stuff into an old airframe, and the result will be the same. For regarding the capability to maneuver even harder than an F-16 can: ever did a 9G turn? Ask the pilots how much more than that they can bear...

Finally, let me clear some things: i'm not against "new aircraft", or against spendings for them, but I do think that it is so that many types build over 20 years ago will have to be refurbished, and that the people have to acustomize to this. 30 years ago, a future generation of aircraft was on the board as soon as the actual went into production. Now it takes 20 to 30 years to construct, develop and introduce a new generation of combat aircraft. If we continue to do the things this way... wait: then the next generation of fighters will most probably be constructed by ingenieurs being just born at the moment we talk! Do you think that refurbishing und using "old/secon hand" planes will become less common?

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 142

RE: what about the buying of second hand fighters?

Tom

Agree with alot of what you say but.........

"After all, just some simple questions: what to hell can a new F-22, or X-32/35 do (except operating under "stealth" conditions) what an 25-years old F-14 or F-16 cannot? Supercruise? "Increased" maneuverabiliy? Sinthetic-aperture radar? Simplier avionics and maintenance procedures? "

You have a good point, you can upgrade aircraft till they are almost completely different from how they started out
just look at the original F-16A and the UAE's F-16C block 60
but an important factor is the long term potential for further development.
I.e you can upgrade a Falcon with todays technologies but what about unforseen developments 20 years from now!?
Eurofighter was designed to incoporate thrust vectoring and stealth in future upgrades. This is one reason why air forces require new aircraft.

The PAF Mirage 3/5 upgrade was a NIGHTMARE for them. They looked at the Singapore airforces upgraded F-5s and thought "hey, we can just pop a nre grifo radar in our mirages just like the SAF did on their F-5s", what actually happened was a 3 year development project to get the damn thing to fit and perform properly in the Mirage!!!

I agree that second hand aircraft are a good option though as often numbers as well as quality are requirede by third world air forces.

SO