F/X Project

Which one is the best fighter-interceptor

  • SAAB BAe JAS-39 Gripen

    Votes: 2 13.3%

  • Lockheed F-16D Falcon

    Votes: 5 33.3%

  • MiG 29-S

    Votes: 1 6.7%

  • Sukhoi Su-35

    Votes: 4 26.7%

  • Dassault Mirage 2000-5

    Votes: 3 20.0%
  • Total voters
    15
Status
Not open for further replies.
Starkey

Starkey

Avenging Rooster
Hi, folks. Since no one is interested in my soccer thread (what could I expect from a 90% American CZ ;) ) I have something more interesting for your tastes.

The Brazilian Air Force (FAB) is not... a model of technology, let's put it that way. It has some transport planes (Hercules, 707s, etc), some choppers (Black Hawks, Super Pumas, etc.), recon (ERJ 145 AWACS, Hawkeyes, etc.) and some other types of aircraft.

The FAB fighter compliment consists of some squadrons of the Embraer AMX (kinda like a Hellcat, strategically talking), F-5 Tiger II :( and the even older Mirages IIIE and IIID interceptors, not to mention lots of modified SuperTucanos (codenamed ALX) for keeping the colombian guerrillas and drug dealers from invading our territory and airspace.

My point here is that the Brazilian Government is about to choose a substitute for the old Mirages (a project called F/X). Vote on the candidates above and explain which one do you think it's the best fighter-interceptor for covering a large territory such as the Brazilian, providing the best tactical advantages.

Rumor has it that the Gripen is the current favorite, despite its short range.
I personally like the Su-35, seems to be very maneuverable. Along with the MiG-29, the biggest obstacle is that they are considered unreliable.
The problem with the Mirage and the F-16 is said to be that France and U.S. are not willing to sell us a state-of-the-art version, they want to sell it without the latest technologic improvements.
Non-official FAB site: www.asas-indomaveis.hpvip.com.br
 
Never heard of it. Is it online?

If any kind Admin/TC/Quarto could do me a favor, I'd be glad. The actual fighters names in the poll are:

SAAB BAe JAS-39 Gripen
Lockheed F-16D Falcon
MiG 29-S
Sukhoi Su-35
Dassault Mirage 2000-5

If you can correct the poll for me, thanks, just to make it more accurate.
 
Unfortunately, it isn't online. As far as I know, World Aircraft is only available as a series of issues. It was released in Australia, but I'm not sure what other countries it's been released in.
 
thanks Quarto
here's the official Brazilian Air Force site: www.fab.mil.br
On the left column, below "Aeronaves", you can click on a menu to see pictures and stats (in Portuguese :D) of all FAB aircraft models.
 
As a brazilian tax payer, I think they should go either for the cheapest or the most reliable one :D I don't know much about airplanes, though, so I can't be any more precise :p

--Eder
 
F-14 Tomcat. Reach out 110 miles and touch them with a Phoenix.

I think that the SU-35 was designed to intercept the SR-71, if I remember correctly. If it could, it would be the best interceptor.
 
Of course, the question of which of these fighters is the best is probably moot... I mean, Brazil's defence needs would be fulfilled more than adequately by a new bunch of F-5s (but I guess they're not produced any more :p). So, it is indeed a matter of choosing the fighter which offers the best reliability for the least cash.
 
Originally posted by Quarto
Brazil's defence needs would be fulfilled more than adequately by a new bunch of F-5s
Click to expand...

The F-5s are 30 year old pieces of junk, they have been crashing a lot lately. They recently made a simulation with the Argentinian, Chilean and French Air Forces and we got beat up bad! So they figured that either you have state-of-the-art stuff or you don't have fighters at all. There's no point in having the worst fighters in South America.
 
*Votes Gripen* Ph34r! :D Though I suppose the F-16 is pretty sweet. I've never heard anything about the Su-35, but Su-27/33 are apparently quite something...
 
Originally posted by Starkey
The F-5s are 30 year old pieces of junk, they have been crashing a lot lately. They recently made a simulation with the Argentinian, Chilean and French Air Forces and we got beat up bad! So they figured that either you have state-of-the-art stuff or you don't have fighters at all. There's no point in having the worst fighters in South America.
Click to expand...
Well, notice I said that a new bunch of F-5s - not the present ones, and notice that I said that's impossible anyway. As for having the worst fighters in South America, that's only a problem if you expect that somebody's going to attack you. Since that doesn't seem to be the case, the fighters which offer the best reliability for their price should be bought. Of course, knowing very little about modern fighters, I don't know which of these it would be. Probably the Mirage, but I'm not sure.
 
Originally posted by Quarto
As for having the worst fighters in South America, that's only a problem if you expect that somebody's going to attack you. Since that doesn't seem to be the case, the fighters which offer the best reliability for their price should be bought.
Click to expand...

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance". We need those fighters just in case. You never know if those FARC will take the power in Colombia or if Peru and Ecuador will finally go to war someday (they have some border clashes every couple of years) or, heck, when we do like in ole Civilization I and "decide to rid the world of the worthless Argentinian civilization" :D.

<initiating countdown for Ghost´s bombardment>
 
FARC would take over Colombia, not Peru. They are different countries. USA wouldn´t have any problem because Mr. Bush Jr. wants to finish his dad´s job and needs Saddam´s head to make daddy proud. Apparently he (and some other Americans) is not worried that FARC is the main responsible for taking tons and tons of cocaine, marijuana, etc. every month to the U.S, ruining the lives of thousands of American citizens, increasing criminality, etc.

We would be in trouble here because Colombia borders with our most unexplored region, and their terrorists have made some incursions and have taken potshots at our military. If they take over a country, I assure you that a Brazil-Colombia conflict (in an environment similar to Vietnam) would be a much tougher war than an electronic war between the U.S. and Afghanistan - wait, there was no such thing as electronics on one of the sides. Well, U.S. has enough taxpayer money to waste million-dollars Tomahawks on a bunch of men with machine guns riding camels.

As for Peru and Ecuador, the least thing we want is two neighbors bombing each other. One can imagine the refugees crossing our borders, the two sides wanting us to take part of one or other and, if we do, we´re at war with the other side. But that´s not U.S.´s problem, Dow Jones ain´t going down if some Ecuadorians and Peruvians bash themselves. For some ($$$) reason, a Kuwaitian live is more important than a Peruvian...
 
Originally posted by Starkey
FARC would take over Colombia, not Peru. They are different countries. USA wouldn´t have any problem because Mr. Bush Jr. wants to finish his dad´s job and needs Saddam´s head to make daddy proud. Apparently he (and some other Americans) is not worried that FARC is the main responsible for taking tons and tons of cocaine, marijuana, etc. every month to the U.S, ruining the lives of thousands of American citizens, increasing criminality, etc....
Click to expand...

wow, you are just alittle to the left....:eek:
Besides, Bush has enough reason to go into Iraq.
They are after all in violation of their surrender, as they kicked out the UN inspectors.
some may say big deal, let him have his weapons.
this is a man who used Bio and Chem. weapons on his own people after all....
if he is going to research Nuc.s and stockpile bio and chem. weapons, he obviously has a use for them planned.
 
Originally posted by Happy
wow, you are just alittle to the left....:eek:
Click to expand...

No I´m not. FARC are communist and I said I don´t like them. As for Saddam, I don´t recall him being in left or right.

Originally posted by Happy
if he is going to research Nuc.s and stockpile bio and chem. weapons, he obviously has a use for them planned.
Click to expand...

Who are you talking about? Saddam or Bush? ;)

Originally posted by Happy
They are after all in violation of their surrender, as they kicked out the UN inspectors.
Click to expand...

AFAIK, they said they will accept UN inspectors as long as none of them are American or British, a condition the U.S. won´t accept. It is reasonable to be inspected by a neutral country (Japan, Russia, etc...). I am not defending Saddam, he should be deposed and arrested, but I am against the suffering of the innocent Iraqi civilians. If the goal is Saddam, why don´t the U.S. just sneak a spy in and kill/arrest him?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top