Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Last edited by delvo on Nov 02, 2011 - 12:27 PM; edited 1 time in total

In every case I know of, where country A doesn't have any companies making any combat planes itself but buys them from companies in country B, the models being bought were originally designed at country B's request for country B, and country A is just getting some extra copies of country B's plane. For example, I think the world's most popular fighter right now is F-16, but F-16s exist because the manufacturer's host country, the USA, asked for it, not because any of the countries it's been exported to did.

Are there no instances of country A going straight to a company in country B to propose a new type of plane that country B isn't asking for? Is it even a possibility?

For example, consider Australia (and to some extent Canada) and their thinking about F-35. Among the grounds for opposition to buying F-35s in both countries are some valid points for those countries' needs: not a long range, not a great speed, not a heavy payload, investment directed instead to some other traits they don't need so much. These countries have a lot of ocean & coast to patrol & defend, and the kinds of threats they'd need to deal with include ships as well as planes, so let's suppose for a moment that their ideal plane would be something bigger that can carry more firepower (both air-to-air and anti-ship) faster and farther than a fighter... more like a B-2 in range and payload (or slightly smaller even) but still slimmer & faster and with an air-to-air radar... or like a smaller, not so "overkill" B-1R (probably simplified with not only less internal payload but also only two seats, fixed swept wings, and no canards or external hardpoints).

Their allies aren't making anything quite like that and haven't even proposed or suggested it. Could they order their own kind of plane from an American or European company, without the company's host country having ordered it? Or are they stuck having to choose from only those planes that some other country wants to make for itself?

F-16.net Sponsor

About the closest thing I can come up with is the F-20 Tigershark. The main reason it failed to garner clients is that they thought "if the US does not want it, why should I 'settle' for it, give us the F-16 instead".

There is also the JF-17 to consider.

SpudmanWP wrote:

About the closest thing I can come up with is the F-20 Tigershark. The main reason it failed to garner clients is that they thought "if the US does not want it, why should I 'settle' for it, give us the F-16 instead".

There is also the JF-17 to consider.

Actually, it was policy changes in the 1980s that killed the F-20, which was intended for sale to non-NATO allies like the F-16/79. The Reagan administration decided that it would push the standard F-16 as America's main export fighter instead, lifting export restrictions put in place by Carter for moralistic reasons. Interesting to note that the F-20 had BVR capability at a time when the F-16 was still considered a "daytime-fighter."

When the F-20 started Dev, the F-16 was not in direct competition. That changed after Russia invaded Afghanistan and Reagan allowed non-NATO (or close allies like Israel, Egypt, or SKorea) countries access to the F-16 (starting with Pakistan), hence your "policy change" comment.

And the F-20 was superior in all ways but payload to the Block 5 F-16A. Now in the long term the F-20 lacked room for growth as it was the end-state of the F-5, much like the Block 60 F-16 is now in that any additional growth requires external mods.

Wasn't the F-5 kinda like that? Even if the initiative came from the US. A cheap but quite capable aircraft built solely for export? The only other candidate I can think of from the top of my head is almost 70 years old. The Mustang, built to the British air ministry's requirements by a US company. When it got the Rolls Royce-engine it excelled and was, as we all know adopted by the US as well. But the initiative was British.

heh, 44 days from bare floor to out the door.

Actually the F-16 was also pushed by some NATO countries which helped move the program along. The Mirage 5, developed from the III, was entirely driven by Israeli design requirements and there are versions of current aircraft built for the customer. The main question is whether your country A wants to foot the entire bill and pay country B to design an aircraft for it? Most nations with that kind of money and willing to spending to it would often choose to develop it in their nation or pay a foreign corporation to heavily help with the program such as LM helping with the KAI T-50 or the F-2 in Japan.

As has been alluded to most nations want to go with something that is perceived as proven. Why take on all the risk of paying for the development of your own aircraft when someone else has already done it for you? Some nations also choose to partner with another to develop an aircraft and thus they both share the risk. That risk should not be underestimated. France is not going to be developing fighters on it's own anymore and is questionable if Sweden will continue to do so.

I'd turn the question on it's head and ask why this expensive and risky notion would make sense to any nation?

Also, from-scratch development costs so much money that countries are not willing to spend it in another country, and would rather spend it within their borders and get their internal industry developed even though the end product might be inferior.

The closest thing in recent memory would be special versions of existing aircraft, like the F-16 Block 60, which is radically different from the Block 50/52, or maybe the MiG-29K for India? Not too sure about that one, though.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

Interesting to note that the F-20 had BVR capability at a time when the F-16 was still considered a "daytime-fighter."

Not quite the fault of the F-16, General Dynamics did test pylons for the Sparrow but the AF didn't like anything threatening the F-15's role.

Also, tiny airplane, big missile:

delvo wrote:

In every case I know of, where country A doesn't have any companies making any combat planes itself but buys them from companies in country B, the models being bought were originally designed at country B's request for country B, and country A is just getting some extra copies of country B's plane. For example, I think the world's most popular fighter right now is F-16, but F-16s exist because the manufacturer's host country, the USA, asked for it, not because any of the countries it's been exported to did.

Are there no instances of country A going straight to a company in country B to propose a new type of plane that country B isn't asking for? Is it even a possibility?

For example, consider Australia (and to some extent Canada) and their thinking about F-35. Among the grounds for opposition to buying F-35s in both countries are some valid points for those countries' needs: not a long range, not a great speed, not a heavy payload, investment directed instead to some other traits they don't need so much. These countries have a lot of ocean & coast to patrol & defend, and the kinds of threats they'd need to deal with include ships as well as planes, so let's suppose for a moment that their ideal plane would be something bigger that can carry more firepower (both air-to-air and anti-ship) faster and farther than a fighter... more like a B-2 in range and payload (or slightly smaller even) but still slimmer & faster and with an air-to-air radar... or like a smaller, not so "overkill" B-1R (probably simplified with not only less internal payload but also only two seats, fixed swept wings, and no canards or external hardpoints).

Their allies aren't making anything quite like that and haven't even proposed or suggested it. Could they order their own kind of plane from an American or European company, without the company's host country having ordered it? Or are they stuck having to choose from only those planes that some other country wants to make for itself?

I think others have raised some good explanations, but one of the main reason why this doesn't happen anymore is primary legislative. The International Traffic in Arms Regulations act or ITAR (as well as a number of other domestic and international agreements then and after). Basically after 1975 the United States Government made it increasingly difficult to export technologies to other states. Consequently thee FMS program became the main conduit by which countries obtained material, and that meant pre-existing models designed for the US military. Obtaining waivers of a completely unique design would be extremely onerous, compared to an established design like the F-16.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Countries that don't make combat planes