| Publication |
defenceWeb |
| Date | 2013-09-13 |
| Reporter | Chris Szabo |
| Web link | www.defenceweb.co.za |
If the Southern African Development Community (SADC)
as a region and South Africa as a country wish
to be taken seriously on the continent, a Beyond
Visual Range (BVR) capability must be introduced
for the SA Air Force’s Gripen C/D fighters.
Otherwise the Air Force has no chance to achieve
air superiority in a given theatre, according to
an Air Force official.
Presenting a paper at the South African Joint
Air Defence Symposium (SAJADS) in Pretoria
yesterday, Lieutenant Colonel Musa ‘Midnite’
Mbhokota, Officer Commanding 2 Squadron at AFB
Makhado, explained that the SA Air Force (SAAF)
did get a BVR capability with the Cheetah C in
the 1990s, using the V4 R-Darter missile and
using a fire control radar which could
accommodate it.
However, in 2008, the BVR capability was lost,
despite the V4 R-Darter missile being a Gripen
User Requirement Specification (URS). There were
apparently numerous reasons for eventually
dropping the V4 missile from the Gripen package,
but obsolescence was the main reason.
Following the government’s White Paper on
National Defence (1996) the posture of the SAAF
was not concentrated on the rest of the
continent, but since then, things have changed.
Although Colonel Mbhokota stressed that no
African country was in any way threatening the
SADC region, African air forces exist with BVR
capabilities and as long as the SAAF does not
have this, it would not stand a chance in a
hypothetical conflict with such forces.
He said Exercise Lion Effort in Sweden had
“proved, if you don’t have a BVR missile in a
BVR environment, you are no factor”. Exercise
Good Hope against the Germans, exercises against
the Americans and the Belgians showed it was
“clear that BVR is the weapon of choice if you
want to have air superiority.”
African air forces equipped with BVR missiles
included Uganda, equipped with 12 Sukhoi Su-30
Flanker H multi-role long range fighters. These
are equipped with the Russian answer to the US
AMRAAM BVR missile, the AA-12 Adder (Russian
R-77). In addition, according to Russian
doctrine, missiles should be fired in salvos of
two, a radio-frequency (RF) homing missile and
an infrared (IR) ‘heat-seeking’ missile. The
Su-30 is a very large aircraft and could carry
up to 12 BVR missiles, while the Gripen, even
with BVR, could carry only four.
An earlier example of African BRV use was during
the Ethiopian-Eritrean War (1998-2000) where
Ethiopia obtained Sukhoi Su-27 Flankers and
Eritrea received Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29s, both
with BVR capability. In addition, Morocco flies
the F-16 equipped with AMRAAMs while Egypt has
the latest Block 52 F-16 with the more modern
AIM-120C AMRAAM. In other words it is a fallacy
to believe that advanced air forces are not to
be found in Africa.
Of the SADC countries, Angola operates Su-27s,
which could be “ramped up” to carry BVR missiles
with the other potential BVR-capable country
being South Africa.
Another problem, which Mbhokota described as a
“step back”, was the ending of air-to-air
refuelling in 2005. He said the SAAF’s Gripens
had flown to the Central African Republic (CAR)
with a refuelling stop in Ndola, Zambia. But,
“before 2005, we would have gone to CAR directly
and come back”.
Mbhokota said the answer was to obtain an “Off
The Shelf” BVR missile while an indigenous
version was developed in South Africa.
At present, the Gripen’s primary air-to-air
weapon is the Diehl BGT Defence IRIS-T short
range air-to-air missile. This was ordered in
May 2008 pending the availability of the locally
developed A-Darter short range weapon. The
infrared-guided IRIS-T was acquired at a cost of
R102 million and was accepted in Germany in
March 2009.
The Denel Dynamics A-Darter will enter service
in 2014. Since March 2007 the weapon has been
under joint development by South Africa and
Brazil’s Ministry of Defence and Air Force as
well as Brazilian companies Mectron, Avibras and
Opto Eletronica. It was first test fired on the
Gripen on June 17, 2010, at the Overberg Test
Range, and integrated onto the Gripen in July
2011. It is also being fitted to the SAAF’s
Hawks and will be added to Brazil’s Northop F-5M
and FX-2 future fighter. Estimated range is
approximately 20 km.
With acknowledgement to
Chris Szabo and defenceWeb.Comments
#1 andrew 2013-09-13 13:26
did i read that correct, SAAF may get meteors,
and denel is looking for a partner to help fund
the marvin BVR AAM/SAM
#2 Editor 2013-09-13 13:37
The Swedish Air Force will get the Meteor next
year (test firings were carried out in Sweden
earlier this year). Denel is looking for a
partner on the Marlin missile project.
#3 andrew 2013-09-13 13:52
Quoting Editor:
The Swedish Air Force will get the Meteor next year (test firings were carried out in Sweden earlier this year). Denel is looking for a partner on the Marlin missile project.
We coulkd do
what we did with the ISRT/ A Darter. Buy a small
meteor batch while the Marlin is developed. The
Meteor looks like a good choice
+3
#4 Bateleur 2013-09-13 17:41
Air Refuelling and BVR capability should be
non-negotiable for a regional power like SA.
#5 John2 2013-09-13 19:17
Just dreaming: By 2017 SAAF will have 8 Heavy
Lift Transport Aircrafts; 4 Air Refuelling
Tankers. The Gripens & Hawks will use the
A-darter + Meteor (Marlin by 2018) + Jamming
Pods. The number of the Gripens are increase to
40 (14 new Gripen E & F) and the Russians
dumping 14 T-50 on us (the Russians threaten to
kick us out of BRICS if we don’t take the 14
T-50, we have no option but to take it.)
#6 Helmoed Heitman 2013-09-14 14:13
Re John2: Now there's a thought. I would just be
worried about supporting those Russian fighters
- everyone else seems to find that a difficult
thing to do with Russian kit - unless acquired
in such numbers that some spares etc are made
locally. Remember too that if we go for only 8
A400Ms we will need to add some C-130Js to the
mix to have the minimum lift to be credible.
On the Gripen mix I agree entirely: 14 (or a
couple more...) E/F models for the precision
strike/interdiction role, and the existing C/Ds
as general-purpose fighters but focussed on
air-to-air.
#7 Richard Young 2013-09-14 18:18
Dreaming, maybe.
Smoking, surely.
#8 flash28 2013-09-14 21:59
The SAAF Gripens uses the PS-05/A, if my
question was answered correctly at an SAAB
presentation, the SAAF Gripens uses the Mk.3
version which has a maximum range of 120km, the
current Mk.5 version has an AESA antennae. I
stand to be corrected but shouldn't we focus on
electronic driven attacks and counter measures
since we have a limited radar range compared to
the Su-30mkk, F-16 et al; the rest of Africa
has. Perhaps before the BVR, the SAAF should aim
at regaining their dedicated AWACS capabilities,
Air to Air refueling and a dedicated electronic
warfare variant of the Gripen and most
importantly reducing the SAAF's R135,400 per
flying hour to the Swedish AF cost of R65,000
per flying hour. Added to that, do we really
need the E/F version? Wouldn't it be far better
if we investigated in the co-development of the
proposed unmanned combat versions of the Gripen
using the A & C versions. But the above would
mean smoking some really good stuff...
#9 John2 2013-09-15 15:41
Re Dr Young
– just dreaming no smoking. I truly hope we will
consider CCII System’s products for the OPV/IPV
to be purchase under Project Biro.
#10 Tamas Feher 2013-09-15 19:59
Hello, The Gripen sees the Su-27/30 aircraft
before the Sukhoi sees the Gripen. This is
because the large sized and metallic built
russian-made warplane has a huge radar
reflection cross section (RCS = app. 7 square
meters). In contrast, the Gripen-C/D is a very
small airplane and most of its outer body panels
are made of plastic composites. Even the cockpit
plexi bubble is coated with rare metals to
bounce away radar waves. This tech difference
gives the Gripen a very low RCS of just 0.1 sq.
meters! Radar detection range varies with the
4th exponential of the RCS, therefore the Sukhoi
is unable to see the Gripen from more than 20
kilometers, even in terrain-unobstructed sky
background. The Gripen however, can detect the
Su-27 from 95-120km away, using its very good
radar set sourced from the british Sea Harrier.
The large russian MiG/Sukhoi twinjets have no
chance against an AMRAAM-equipped swedish, czech
or hungarian Gripen-C. South Africa was
short-sighted not to buy AMRAAMS for their
Gripens!
#11 flash28 2013-09-15 22:34
@Tamas Feher, are you sure? Because the Ugandan
Sukhoi Su-30 Flanker H uses the N035 Irbis-E
(Snow Leopard) radar which the head-on effective
range is in excess of 90 km and can detect a
0.01 square meters aerial target. Against a
typical aerial target with 3 square meters, the
effective range is in excess of 400 km
(head-on). Add to that the superior range of the
Su-30. Perhaps with the F414 powered Gripen E/F
and with AESA it would struggle but with the
F404 powered C/D variants I doubt it would be an
easy engagement. It was corruption that caused
South Africa not to buy the AMRAAMs. The AIM-120
AMRAAM C, the AGM-65 Maverick, the RBS-15 and
the GBU-12 Paveway II in sufficient numbers
should have all been procured with the original
Gripen order. South Africa got a raw deal and
this is because of corruption from BAE, SAAB,
ANC, SAAF et al... in that order.
#12 flash28 2013-09-15 22:49
Added to the above, we should have at the very
minimum negotiated that the price for the
Gripens include the integration of the Denel
A-Darter IR AAM, the Kentron R-Darter BVR AAM or
it's successor, the Denel Umbani Glide Bomb, the
Kentron Raptor II precision-guided glide bomb
and either the Denel TORGOS or Kentron MUSPOW. I
stand corrected but I'm pretty sure we risk
losing our warranties if we attempt to integrate
the above without authorization and full
involvement from SAAB. The fact that the weapon
systems, engine spares and tooling, training of
minimum 26 pilots and 26 air crews weren't
procured shows that these planes were procured
with bribes from BAE and SAAB being the central
motivation. The original order was actually for
28 Gripens and that was scaled down to fund 2
Training Simulators, this wasn't part of the
deal, why? Because BAE (Britain) and SAAB
(Sweden) Screwed South Africa and the ANC and
SAAF willingly allowed it to happen. I digress,
we need a BVR AAM, as well as a 200km+ AGM/CM/ASM.
But before all of that, let's concentrate on
getting 26 pilots and at least 120 flight hours
per year each and reducing our cost per flight
hour.
Quote
#13 Darren Olivier 2013-09-16 21:07
@flash28: You definitely don't want to have 26
active pilots at 2 Squadron as half of them
wouldn't be flying on any given day even with an
adequate budget. That's because in peacetime no
squadron is maintained at 100% readiness and
with maintenance requirements it's not uncommon
for only 60-70% of the fleet to be operationally
available.
If you look at similar fighter aircraft
acquisitions elsewhere, countries typically
purchase slightly more aircraft than they need
in order to cater both for the issue of
availability and for attrition which is sadly
considered inevitable.
With all this in mind a squadron strength of
15-18 pilots at 2 Squadron would be adequate,
along with additional pilots in the Reserve
Force who would remain current and could be
called up if needed.
Similarly, the cost per flying hour is difficult
to compare as Helmoed stated. Not only do all
air forces use different input factors for their
calculations, but some of the costs are fixed
per type and divided across the fleet size,
meaning that the cost per flying hour goes down
the more aircraft you have. This in part
explains why the cost per flying hour to the
RAAF of its F/A-18Es is more than twice that of
the US Navy.
The acquisition of a BVR missile before full
operational capability of the Gripen fleet in
2015 is essential as Lt Col Mbhokota has
convincingly said, but the acquisition of a
cruise missile is not. For the time-being the
Paveway II laser-guided bombs will be
sufficient, although ideally the Al-Tariq
(formerly Umbani) kit should be integrated as
well.
As for the R-Darter, the original plan did
include its integration but the SAAF chose to
abandon it and rather acquire a new BVR missile
some time later. I know of no skulduggery
involved in the decision.
#14 Richard Young 2013-09-17 13:42
@John2
Thank you for your endorsement.
I truly hope that the DoD will consider CCII
Systems’s products for the OPV/IPV/HSV to be
purchased under Projects Biro and Hotel.
But for the moment I'll just be smoking and
dreaming.
#15 Richard Young 2013-09-17 13:49
@Flash28
I think that you are right on the money.
Initiating a R10 billion capital acquisition
without weapons nor ordnance and in the same
year that the current equipment is accepted into
service and 15 years before the new equipment is
taken into service is irrational and skulduggery
of the highest order.
That is why the SAAF, just like the SAN, is the
lame duck that we find it today.
It's simple, the SDPs were not implemented in
order to properly equip and enable the SANDF.