On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 08:23:57 GMT, Tom Cooper wrote:

I'd like to join the opinion: even if I have heard a lots of rumors and
reports about negotiations, the deal wasn't signed yet, and there is no 100%
certainity that anything will be ordered even if something would be signed.
Norway and Greece "decided for EF-2000" too, but haven't ordered any. The
Austrians have also decided for EF-2000, but ordered some only after almost
a year of postponnement...

The Austrian and Greek delays have been due to budgetary problems, I
think. I don't see any reason why Greece won't buy Typhoons.

That's a theoretical range; what's a typical engagement range, and
what's the furthest range it's been successfully fired at?

Known are following details about the combat use of the AIM-54:
- the longest shot in training ever: 212km (scored in January 1979, in Iran,
against a target drone)
- the longest shot to kill in combat: approx 140km
- average engagement ranges: between 20 and 70km
- the shorterst shot to kill in combat: 7.5km

Thanks.

I don't see why SA and Egypt couldn't make modifications ot their
aircraft too, even if they don't have a large electronics industry.

Errr, one remark he doing modifications on the EF-2000 in the field will
be very problematic. As a matter of fact, the EADS did everything possible
to avoid the situation with the Tornado IDS/GR.Mks, where meanwhile even
aircraft of different units within the same air force have - in part -
completely different equipment, software etc....

If I was spending millions on fighter aircraft (or on anything)
else, I'd insist I had the source code to the software, so I had the
abilty to alter it. Not only that, there's also security
considerations: if one doesn't have the source code (and even if one
does) there always the possibility that a backdoor's been put in it
-- the original supplier could broadcast a predefined code, which is
picked up by the aircrafts' radars, and makes them work less
efficiently.

Or unless the Europeans do.

IMHO, this is the "largest" problem he the Europeans are seriously
negotiating with the Saudis for sale of advanced combat aircraft to SA - and
without a direct US involvement in the deal.

What about al-Yamamah?

This was not the case ever
since Hunters were sold to the RSAF, in the mid-1960s (even the sale of
Lightnings to RSAF and KAF was actually a US-sponsored deal, organized in
order the British to earn money so they could buy the planned F-111K - which
never materialized). For understandable reasons, the USA (and even less so
Israel) are not interested in this deal becoming a reality.

For security reasons? Or commercial ones? Or both?

If the UK has a non-poodle leader (that rules out Blair) then it
won't bow down to US objections to its export policies.

The matter nobody mentioned here, however, is the fact that the Israelis are
already negotiating a purchase of 50 F-22s from 2007 or so... Consequently,
it is simply so that "both sides" are planning to continue their arms-race.

I'm all in favour of arms races if they help British industry.

I.e. no real reasons to worry about...

Frankly, when the USA are selling 80 F-16C/D Block 60 to UAE, then there are
apparently no reasons for concern in Israel or the USA. There are such,
however, when Eurofighters could eventually be sold to SA. How comes this?

I wonder how much defence contractors donated to the Bush campaign?

In total war-fighting capability the Israeli military is clearly and wastly
superior to any Arab military - even to most of them combined.

Indeed.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?