Italy retires the AMX

[Slater]

Didn't realize that it had been in service for 35 years.

 

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/italy-retires-amx-light-strike-jet

[exdraken]

Yes, little fighter, kind of a successor to the G-91 Gina light fighter Italy and Germany had to produce numbers....

 

Brazil still uses them, and upgraded them some time ago.

 

I fear on a modern battlefield they are outdated, but for Afghanistan and counter ISIS I assume they were a cost effective alternative to Eurofighter and Tornado...

 

Sad to see them go!

[Graham T]

Blimey. I always think of this as quite a modern jet but seems not!

[exdraken]

7 hours ago, Graham T said:

Blimey. I always think of this as quite a modern jet but seems not!

It is not that old actually!

But mot a modern 4th or 5th generation either.

A rel cheap an simple support, light ground attack jet.

Not something anyone strives for...

[kiseca]

23 hours ago, Graham T said:

Blimey. I always think of this as quite a modern jet but seems not!

Me too. Last I read about them was some concept drawings and a writeup of their anticipated potential in a 1980s Bill Gunston book about future warplanes. Now they've had a whole career, come and gone. I've been stuck in a timewarp because I stopped buying aircraft books in around 1990.

Edited April 22 by kiseca

[Britman]

Are they out of hours or is a possible sale available as an option. New Zealand, Ireland etc? Yes I know, talking bo looks! Good canvas for the wif brigade.

 

Keith 

[CH-53D]

I, too, thought of the AMX as "newer" types, and admit to surprise that they have seen 35 years of service already!

 

But then, as a kid I remember the F-14 entering service as the latest hot Navy fighter, while the YF-16 and YF-17 were having a flyoff as the new light fighter.  I remember talking to my father (who flew Spitfires in the RAF in WWII) about them, and telling him I thought the USAF would choose the YF-16, but the Navy would want the YF-17 because it had two engines.

I still think of the F-22 and F-35 as "new".

 

It would be interesting to see the AMX in Irish colours.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 23 by CH-53D

[exdraken]

Brazil will use them for a couple of more years...

4 hours ago, Britman said:

Are they out of hours or is a possible sale available as an option. New Zealand, Ireland etc? Yes I know, talking bo looks! Good canvas for the wif brigade.

 

Keith 

Why?

They do not want any fighters obviously... if they wanted, they'd go for F-16s probably...

[Britman]

Not sure you understood my clumsy effort to suggest a discussion subject. Years ago Austria went looking for second hand fighters even looked at Lightnings(real ones made in Britain) but ended up with Drakens, who'd have thought? Any thoughts anyone?

 

Keith 

[exdraken]

The AMX has no radar.... as such is rather ill suited as a fighter.

Than it is subsonic, another problem, even for air policing (Austria!) only.!

it is a little attack and recce plane. I you need one, go ahead!.

 

[Slater]

It would probably make a  decent COIN aircraft, in the class of the A-37 Dragonfly.

[Doc72]

I have always liked the AMX although I think it was a bit of an anachronism from the start. Kind of like the last light attack aircraft when everyone else went for multirole jets. Of course, the end of the Cold War and probably high costs due to small inital orders by the launch customers also explain its lack of export success. Most airforces preferred a used F-16 if it was available at a similar price as a new AMX. 

I also wonder if the R.R. Spey was a good choice, certainly a proven design, but also already an old one in the late 1980s.

BTW, seen from a certain angle, the AMX really shows that it shares some research with the Tornado. Of course, it is smaller, a single seater and with wings and intakes simplified for subsonic flight, but still there is a certain family resemblance.

[Giorgio N]

12 hours ago, Slater said:

It would probably make a  decent COIN aircraft, in the class of the A-37 Dragonfly.

 

Not really in the same class, the AMX is larger and heavier and also a bit underpowered. The kind of low level flying COIN aircraft often have to do is not something an AMX pilot would love to do.

On the other hand the AMX can a number of guided weapons so can be used in the kind of attack missions most commonly flown today.

Still, I can see no particularly good selling point for the existing fleet today. Unless an air force just want something that can fly and drop LGB and JDAMs without any other particularly interesting feature

 

1 hour ago, Doc72 said:

I have always liked the AMX although I think it was a bit of an anachronism from the start. Kind of like the last light attack aircraft when everyone else went for multirole jets. Of course, the end of the Cold War and probably high costs due to small inital orders by the launch customers also explain its lack of export success. Most airforces preferred a used F-16 if it was available at a similar price as a new AMX. 

I also wonder if the R.R. Spey was a good choice, certainly a proven design, but also already an old one in the late 1980s.

BTW, seen from a certain angle, the AMX really shows that it shares some research with the Tornado. Of course, it is smaller, a single seater and with wings and intakes simplified for subsonic flight, but still there is a certain family resemblance.

 

Yes, the AMX was in a sense an anachronism from the start. It was meant to replace the G.91 and complement the Tornado with a cheaper design for the less demanding attack missions, a role for which the Luftwaffe used the Alpha Jet. Sure the AMX was a better performer in this aspect compared to the Franco-German trainer but really it was the kind of aircraft that was becoming obsolete by the time it flew, a single mission light attack type.

The Spey was actually a terrible choice, more so as the variant used was unique to this aircraft, that further increased the costs. The AMX was always underpowered and suffered from a lack of acceleration at low level, due in part to the unfavourable thrust/weight ration and in part to the spooling time of the engine. This caused a number of accidents but fortunately the introduction of guided weapons meant that the AMX could continue to fulfil its role avoiding the less favourable flight conditions while the introduction of a lighter recce pod saved the aircraft tasked for this role (carrying the original Orpheus pod was a problem). In the end the fleet contributed positively to operations over the Balkans and Afghanistan so redeeming somewhat a troublesome start of its career...

The AMX initially suffered from a number of problems, inclusing some embarassing ones like canopies opening in flight and panels falling off the aircraft. A number of improvements was continuously introduced on the production lines, resulting in aircraft that varied across the fleet. To sort the matter at some point the Air Force retired all the early production aircraft, keeping and later upgrading only built from a certain production lot onward.

The whole program was very expensive and today we can say it was probably a waste of time and money, even taking into account the relative success that the type enjoyed in operation. At the same time the idea was to keep the local industry busy and in this the AMX succedded more than buying second hand USAF F-16s, something that the air force was offered when USAFE's 401st TFW left its mounts at Torrejon.

 

As I said above, I can't see any country being interested in the AMX fleet today, even buying all the spares and existing logistic support. Used F-16s would be more effective from an operational point of view and likely cheaper to operate in the end.

[Britman]

Just the kind of discussion I was hoping for Georgio. Very interesting insight to many things not commonly known without researching. A shame all did not understand my intentions!

 

Keith 

[noelh]

I too, am surprised it's being phased out. To me it's new, but I've reached a  certain age. 

 

But if anything the Ukraine war has taught us, it's that the  drones have arrived, not in the way we anticipated. From one on one combat to very long range AA missiles. 

 

Perhaps Sandys, is being vindicated? 🤔

Edited April 24 by noelh

[Giorgio N]

On 4/24/2024 at 7:10 PM, Britman said:

Just the kind of discussion I was hoping for Georgio. Very interesting insight to many things not commonly known without researching. A shame all did not understand my intentions!

 

Keith 

 

I believe that the AMX never was a very well known aircraft outside Italy, a fate common with other types not flying with the "main" air forces. The language barrier also doesn't help those interested in researching the AMX history as most information appeared on the Italian press only. Fortunately things are in general better since the Internet has made everything more accessible.

Unfortunately the AMX in Italy also made the mainstream news thanks to a number of accidents. Reliability was not great in the early years, partly due to the lack of spares. Things improved dramatically in later years but at that point the AMX was something everybody knew existed but few cared about. Even the retirement seems to have passed under the radar without much publicity. Part of this is due to how the Aeronautica Militare is generally quite shy in regard to the operational use of their aircraft so the contribution to the operations in Afghanistan was not advertised outside the enthusiasts community. Maybe the fact that the type was OOP and therefore didn't need to be promoted to potential customers was a factor. The M.345 in the same years had much more publicity.

Speaking of the potential foreign sales, Argentina for a while showed some interest. The sale di tdn't go through for a number of reasons, one of them quite ironic: one of the points that pushed the selection of the Spey was the fact that a UK made engine would have been easier to export than a corresponding American engine. When Argentina expressed interest the problem of re-exporting a British engine to a country that was not London's friend at the moment was a problem!

Mind, the decision to use the Spey was highly controversial. IMHO the base engine itself was fine in several aspects, first of all reliability. It was the decision to use a variant designed specifically that increased costs and in the end caused problems.

Still the type entered service in 1988 and was retired in 2024, makes 36 years. Not as long a career as other types but not too bad overall, particularly for a type built in small numbers.

 

[GiampieroSilvestri]

1 hour ago, Giorgio N said:

 

I believe that the AMX never was a very well known aircraft outside Italy, a fate common with other types not flying with the "main" air forces. The language barrier also doesn't help those interested in researching the AMX history as most information appeared on the Italian press only. Fortunately things are in general better since the Internet has made everything more accessible.

Unfortunately the AMX in Italy also made the mainstream news thanks to a number of accidents. Reliability was not great in the early years, partly due to the lack of spares. Things improved dramatically in later years but at that point the AMX was something everybody knew existed but few cared about. Even the retirement seems to have passed under the radar without much publicity. Part of this is due to how the Aeronautica Militare is generally quite shy in regard to the operational use of their aircraft so the contribution to the operations in Afghanistan was not advertised outside the enthusiasts community. Maybe the fact that the type was OOP and therefore didn't need to be promoted to potential customers was a factor. The M.345 in the same years had much more publicity.

Speaking of the potential foreign sales, Argentina for a while showed some interest. The sale di tdn't go through for a number of reasons, one of them quite ironic: one of the points that pushed the selection of the Spey was the fact that a UK made engine would have been easier to export than a corresponding American engine. When Argentina expressed interest the problem of re-exporting a British engine to a country that was not London's friend at the moment was a problem!

Mind, the decision to use the Spey was highly controversial. IMHO the base engine itself was fine in several aspects, first of all reliability. It was the decision to use a variant designed specifically that increased costs and in the end caused problems.

Still the type entered service in 1988 and was retired in 2024, makes 36 years. Not as long a career as other types but not too bad overall, particularly for a type built in small numbers.

 

Venezuela was interested in buying the AMX from Brazil but the US forbid the Brazilian gouvernement to sell it because the aircraft has american electronic.

This is from wikipedia:The Venezuelan Air Force ordered eight AMX-ATA in 1999 for the advanced trainer and attack aircraft role, but the US Congress vetoed the sale because the aircraft systems include US technology.

 

Saluti

 

Giampiero

Edited April 29 by GiampieroSilvestri

[Britman]

Although a good engine, the Spey seems to have been misused  previously on the Phantom by the British and it would seem the Italians. I was rather thinking of South America with my initial ramblings about second hand users. Thank you for the information Giorgio and Giampiero .

 

Keith 

[Graham Boak]

The Spey on the Phantom restricted the supersonic performance because the airframe was not fully re-area ruled.  (Though there may be some under-estimation of the J-79 supersonically.)  However the Spey Phantom was longer-ranged and had superior acceleration, which were generally more useful.  It is difficult to see why the non-reheated version was misused by the Italians for much the same role as it in the A-7. 

[Work In Progress]

On 4/29/2024 at 8:23 PM, Graham Boak said:

It is difficult to see why the non-reheated version was misused by the Italians for much the same role as it in the A-7. 

I think it's really just the difference between an aircraft which first flew in 1965 versus one which first flew in 1990. By then they could have had something a lot more modern, perhaps like a non-reheated F-404, much lighter and smaller for the same power. 

[exdraken]

1 hour ago, Work In Progress said:

I think it's really just the difference between an aircraft which first flew in 1965 versus one which first flew in 1990. By then they could have had something a lot more modern, perhaps like a non-reheated F-404, much lighter and smaller for the same power. 

was the Tornado engine (R199) without reheat not an option?
That would have improved commonality... and solved the export issues....

[Work In Progress]

15 minutes ago, exdraken said:

was the Tornado engine (R199) without reheat not an option?

Possibly, though arguably a bit light on power non reheated, looks like about 9,200 lbf max? though there may be variants I am unaware of. The unreheated F404 used in the Singaporean A-4 Skyhawk upgrades was 10,800 lbf, which is a lot more punch for your money, and pretty much the same power as the 11,000 lbf Spey in the AMX, while the engine itself is about 1800 lb lighter than the Spey, so you get better usefully more power-to-weight, as well as some packaging advantages.  I'd rather have the extra performance as the AMX was not reputed to be a real fireball.

Edited May 8 by Work In Progress

[Graham Boak]

1 hour ago, exdraken said:

was the Tornado engine (R199) without reheat not an option?
That would have improved commonality... and solved the export issues....

The export issue was the electronics, not the engine.  Given that the engine could have been replaced by the Allison-built Spey rather than the British one, that needn't have been any problem.  The difficulty was with the customer.

[Giorgio N]

5 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

The export issue was the electronics, not the engine.  Given that the engine could have been replaced by the Allison-built Spey rather than the British one, that needn't have been any problem.  The difficulty was with the customer.

 

The problem with the export to Venezuela was due to some US made electronic components, the deal with Argentina however was partly affected by the presence of a British engine at a moment when the UK was not on good terms with the Latin American Country,

Both could have been solved one way or the other of course, particularly the Venezuelan order since most of the AMX equipment are actually from Israel, a country that had no problem selling arms everywhere in South America. This would have however resulted in extra costs not justified by the size of the order.

With the engine the problem was more serious because the AMX used its own specific variant of the Spey. This alone caused a lot of controversy as many objected that an off-the-shelf variant would have been a better option.

 

1 hour ago, Work In Progress said:

Possibly, though arguably a bit light on power non reheated, looks like about 9,200 lbf max? though there may be variants I am unaware of. The unreheated F404 used in the Singaporean A-4 Skyhawk upgrades was 10,800 lbf, which is a lot more punch for your money, and pretty much the same power as the 11,000 lbf Spey in the AMX, while the engine itself is about 1800 lb lighter than the Spey, so you get better usefully more power-to-weight, as well as some packaging advantages.  I'd rather have the extra performance as the AMX was not reputed to be a real fireball.

 

The F404 was indeed considered but there were two issues: the abovementioned risk of export bans and the fact that when the AMX was designed there was no non-reheated variant of the F404 available yet, meaning that part of the development costs would have had to be covered by the AMX group. Some believed even back then that this would have been the best option however the Spey remained. As usual when aerospace programs get controversial, there has been a lot of debate and conspiracy theories about the choice of the Spey, in any case the AMX first flew with the Spey and used the engine for its whole career.

[kiseca]

Not the most exciting reading, but I dug out that 1980s book that I mentioned previously on the thread and photographed the entry on the AMX.

 

Here it is for anyone interested... hopefully the text is clear enough to read!

 

 

 

The book is Warplanes of the Future, written by Bill Gunston and published in 1985. Interesting to recall that back then the F-20 still had an exciting future, and the west had little idea what a MiG-29 actually looked like!