Impact of Eurofighters in the Middle East

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On 13 Sep 2003 04:51:07 -0700, Quant wrote:
(Jack White) wrote

I'm not an air force expert but it is clear from your post that
neither do you. Lets post your claims at rec.aviation.military and
watch the replies.

[I'm not an expert either, but I'll wade in nevertheless...]

The Eurofighter Typhoon will give the Saudi Armed Forces the
capability maintain air superiority over any country in the Middle
East including Israel.

Hang, on, who's saying thre Saudis are buying the Typhoon? If they
are, I haven't heard of it.

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 Eurofighter Typhoon has the Meteor Mach4+ Ramjet Powered air to
air BVR missiles with OVER 100km range.

It will have in the future; currently Meteor is still under
development.

So? The US AIM-54 is operative for many years now and has a range of
at least 135 km.

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


While Israel will know the
exact characteristics of the systems Saudi Arabia and Egypt will have

Why?

Excellent question: except the Israelis would get any sensitive infos via
espionage, there is absolutely no guarantee for such statements. Quite on
the contrary: given the security regarding the EF-2000's software, the
likelyhood that anything would be revealed early is very, very low. Remember
that even if their propaganda machinery tries its best to convince us of
this, the Israelis are no "mighty supermen in everything they do"....

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....

The Eurofighter Typhoon has the capability to destroy F-15Is and
F-16Is before the F-15I or F-16I even knows that the Eurofighter
Typhoon is there.

This may or may not be the case. Typhoon is almost certainly a
better plane than the F-15 or F-16; it's more manouvrable, has a
better thrust-to-weight ratio, can supercruise, is partially
stealthed, and has better avionics making the pilot's job easier.
However, until it has seen combat, it's to early to say
definitievely what its capabilities are.

That's truth.

Israel is
relying upon its own early warning systems while Saudi Arabia and
Egypt will have to rely upon inferior systems, unless the US will sell
its best technology to these Arab countries

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. 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.

The F-22 Raptor is the only aircraft that performs better than the
Eurofighter Typhoon in an air superiority capacity.
From what I've read I don't think even the JSF is up to the
Eurofighter Typhoon's level in the air superiority role.

The JSF isn't designed to be a pure air superiority aircraft, it's,
as its name suggests, designed to be multi-role.

"Made in USA" makes nothing "automatically better" than "Made in EU" or
anywhere else. There are exceptions, of course (F-22 is one), but this
doesn't mean that one can generalize and declare the JSF a "better air
superiority fighter than the EF-2000". Nobody can know this, yet, as neither
is in active service.

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.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?

It is clear though that the Egyptian army, and maybe also the Saudi
Army pose a real threat on Israel. This is not new.

Why alway think in such a one-sided way? Isn't the Israeli military an even
larger threat to all of its neighours? From what I remember, the Arabs were
aggressors against Israel only two times: in 1948 and 1973. The Israelis, on
the contrary, are more than well-known (actually "famous") for their
aggressive wars (1956, 1967, 1970, 1982 etc., etc.) and their "externals"
(1968, 1970, 1976, 1981, 1985 etc.), and are the only ones involved there
still holding areas that do not belong to them by any international
regulations (in turn giving the Arabs the reason to continue the conflict).

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

Given this alone, who is then a threat for who there?

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585

"Tom Cooper" wrote in message ...
"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On 13 Sep 2003 04:51:07 -0700, Quant wrote:
(Jack White) wrote

I'm not an air force expert but it is clear from your post that
neither do you. Lets post your claims at rec.aviation.military and
watch the replies.

[I'm not an expert either, but I'll wade in nevertheless...]

The Eurofighter Typhoon will give the Saudi Armed Forces the
capability maintain air superiority over any country in the Middle
East including Israel.

Hang, on, who's saying thre Saudis are buying the Typhoon? If they
are, I haven't heard of it.

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 Eurofighter Typhoon has the Meteor Mach4+ Ramjet Powered air to
air BVR missiles with OVER 100km range.

It will have in the future; currently Meteor is still under
development.

So? The US AIM-54 is operative for many years now and has a range of
at least 135 km.

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


While Israel will know the
exact characteristics of the systems Saudi Arabia and Egypt will have

Why?

Excellent question: except the Israelis would get any sensitive infos via
espionage, there is absolutely no guarantee for such statements. Quite on
the contrary: given the security regarding the EF-2000's software, the
likelyhood that anything would be revealed early is very, very low. Remember
that even if their propaganda machinery tries its best to convince us of
this, the Israelis are no "mighty supermen in everything they do"....

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....

The Eurofighter Typhoon has the capability to destroy F-15Is and
F-16Is before the F-15I or F-16I even knows that the Eurofighter
Typhoon is there.

This may or may not be the case. Typhoon is almost certainly a
better plane than the F-15 or F-16; it's more manouvrable, has a
better thrust-to-weight ratio, can supercruise, is partially
stealthed, and has better avionics making the pilot's job easier.
However, until it has seen combat, it's to early to say
definitievely what its capabilities are.

That's truth.

Israel is
relying upon its own early warning systems while Saudi Arabia and
Egypt will have to rely upon inferior systems, unless the US will sell
its best technology to these Arab countries

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. 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.

The F-22 Raptor is the only aircraft that performs better than the
Eurofighter Typhoon in an air superiority capacity.
From what I've read I don't think even the JSF is up to the
Eurofighter Typhoon's level in the air superiority role.

The JSF isn't designed to be a pure air superiority aircraft, it's,
as its name suggests, designed to be multi-role.

"Made in USA" makes nothing "automatically better" than "Made in EU" or
anywhere else. There are exceptions, of course (F-22 is one), but this
doesn't mean that one can generalize and declare the JSF a "better air
superiority fighter than the EF-2000". Nobody can know this, yet, as neither
is in active service.

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.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?

It is clear though that the Egyptian army, and maybe also the Saudi
Army pose a real threat on Israel. This is not new.

Why alway think in such a one-sided way? Isn't the Israeli military an even
larger threat to all of its neighours? From what I remember, the Arabs were
aggressors against Israel only two times: in 1948 and 1973.


Not True.
The feeling in Israel in the evening of the six days war was that "we
are doomed, the Arabs are going to win this war and our fate will be
terrible".
thoughts of a second holocaust comes to mind...

Read the facts bellow before claiming that Israel was the aggressor.

from:
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/67_War.html

Israel consistently expressed a desire to negotiate with its
neighbors. In an address to the UN General Assembly on October 10,
1960, Foreign Minister Golda Meir challenged Arab leaders to meet with
Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to negotiate a peace settlement.
Nasser answered on October 15, saying that Israel was trying to
deceive world opinion, and reiterating that his country would never
recognize the Jewish State.(1)

The Arabs were equally adamant in their refusal to negotiate a
separate settlement for the refugees. As Nasser told the United Arab
Republic National Assembly March 26, 1964:

Israel and the imperialism around us, which confront us, are two
separate things. There have been attempts to separate them, in order
to break up the problems and present them in an imaginary light as if
the problem of Israel is the problem of the refugees, by the solution
of which the problem of Palestine will also be solved and no residue
of the problem will remain. The danger of Israel lies in the very
existence of Israel as it is in the present and in what she
represents.(2)

Meanwhile, Syria used the Golan Heights, which tower 3,000 feet above
the Galilee, to shell Israeli farms and villages. Syria's attacks grew
more frequent in 1965 and 1966, while Nasser's rhetoric became
increasingly bellicose: "We shall not enter Palestine with its soil
covered in sand," he said on March 8, 1965. "We shall enter it with
its soil saturated in blood."(3)

Again, a few months later, Nasser expressed the Arabs' aspiration:
"...the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In
other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The
immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim:
the eradication of Israel."(4)

Provocation
While Nasser continued to make speeches threatening war, Arab
terrorist attacks grew more frequent. In 1965, 35 raids were conducted
against Israel. In 1966, the number increased to 41. In just the first
four months of 1967, 37 attacks were launched.(5)

Meanwhile, Syria's attacks on Israeli kibbutzim from the Golan Heights
provoked a retaliatory strike on April 7, 1967, during which Israeli
planes shot down six Syrian MiGs. Shortly thereafter, the Soviet
Union-which had been providing military and economic aid to both Syria
and Egypt-gave Damascus information alleging a massive Israeli
military buildup in preparation for an attack. Despite Israeli
denials, Syria decided to invoke its defense treaty with Egypt.

On May 15, Israel's Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving
into the Sinai and massing near the Israeli border. By May 18, Syrian
troops were prepared for battle along the Golan Heights.

Nasser ordered the UN Emergency Force, stationed in the Sinai since
1956, to withdraw on May 16. Without bringing the matter to the
attention of the General Assembly, as his predecessor had promised,
Secretary-General U Thant complied with the demand. After the
withdrawal of the UNEF, the Voice of the Arabs proclaimed (May 18,
1967):

As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force
to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not
complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall
apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the
extermination of Zionist existence.(6)

An enthusiastic echo was heard May 20 from Syrian Defense Minister
Hafez Assad:

Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression,
but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the
Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its
finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that
the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.(7)

The Blockade
On May 22, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli shipping
and all ships bound for Eilat. This blockade cut off Israel's only
supply route with Asia and stopped the flow of oil from its main
supplier, Iran.

In 1956, the United States gave Israel assurances that it recognized
the Jewish State's right of access to the Straits of Tiran. In 1957,
at the UN, 17 maritime powers declared that Israel had a right to
transit the Strait. Moreover, the blockade violated the Convention on
the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, which was adopted by the UN
Conference on the Law of the Sea on April 27, 1958.(8)

President Johnson expressed the belief that the blockade was illegal
and unsuccessfully tried to organize an international flotilla to test
it. After the war, he acknowledged the closure of the Strait of Tiran
was the casus belli (June 19, 1967):

If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than
any other it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision that
the Strait of Tiran would be closed. The right of innocent maritime
passage must be preserved for all nations.(9)

Escalation
Nasser was fully aware of the pressure he was exerting to force
Israel's hand. The day after the blockade was set up, he said
defiantly: "The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are
ready for war."(10)

Nasser challenged Israel to fight almost daily. "Our basic objective
will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight," he
said on May 27.(11) The following day, he added: "We will not accept
any...coexistence with Israel...Today the issue is not the
establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel....The war
with Israel is in effect since 1948."(12)

King Hussein of Jordan signed a defense pact with Egypt on May 30.
Nasser then announced:

The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the
borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us
are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab
nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the
Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have
reached the stage of serious action and not declarations.(13)

President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq joined in the war of words: "The
existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our
opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since
1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map."(14) On June 4,
Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

The Arab rhetoric was matched by the mobilization of Arab forces.
Approximately 250,000 troops (nearly half in Sinai), more than 2,000
tanks and 700 aircraft ringed Israel.(15)

By this time, Israeli forces had been on alert for three weeks. The
country could not remain fully mobilized indefinitely, nor could it
allow its sea lane through the Gulf of Aqaba to be interdicted. Israel
had no choice but preemptive action. To do this successfully, Israel
needed the element of surprise. Had it waited for an Arab invasion,
Israel would have been at a potentially catastrophic disadvantage. On
June 5, the order was given to attack Egypt.




The Israelis, on
the contrary, are more than well-known (actually "famous") for their
aggressive wars (1956, 1967, 1970, 1982 etc., etc.) and their "externals"
(1968, 1970, 1976, 1981, 1985 etc.), and are the only ones involved there
still holding areas that do not belong to them by any international
regulations (in turn giving the Arabs the reason to continue the conflict).

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

Given this alone, who is then a threat for who there?

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585

"Quant" wrote in message
om...
"Tom Cooper" wrote in message
...
"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On 13 Sep 2003 04:51:07 -0700, Quant wrote:
(Jack White) wrote
Not True.
The feeling in Israel in the evening of the six days war was that "we
are doomed, the Arabs are going to win this war and our fate will be
terrible".
thoughts of a second holocaust comes to mind...

Read the facts bellow before claiming that Israel was the aggressor.

Oh, of course, that was "completely new" to me....

Anyway, thanks for the exhaustive historical lesson about the backgrounds
of the Six Day War. Certainly badly needed - especially in the light of the
fact that what you posted is not the least changing the fact that Israel
committed far more aggressions against its "neighbours" plus simply ignored
every single related UN resolution so far then the Arabs will ever manage
(not that the Arabs are sheeps in the coral either, but that was the
point)....

BTW, which time do we have? May 1967 or September 2003? Has Egypt blocked
the Tyran Straits just few days back, or should it this time be the talk
about the Saudis eventually buying EF-2000s?

(I need these answers to understand the theat for Israel emerging from
eventual Saudi-British negotiations for Eurofighters, so thanks in advance
for an answer that will be similarly comprehensive as your last one)

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585

"Tom Cooper" wrote in message ...
"Quant" wrote in message
om...
"Tom Cooper" wrote in message
...
"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On 13 Sep 2003 04:51:07 -0700, Quant wrote:
(Jack White) wrote
Not True.
The feeling in Israel in the evening of the six days war was that "we
are doomed, the Arabs are going to win this war and our fate will be
terrible".
thoughts of a second holocaust comes to mind...

Read the facts bellow before claiming that Israel was the aggressor.

Oh, of course, that was "completely new" to me....

Anyway, thanks for the exhaustive historical lesson about the backgrounds
of the Six Day War. Certainly badly needed


So, if you're already familiar with all the facts. How come that you
said that Israel was the aggressor on 1967?


Your wrote:
"
From what I remember, the Arabs were aggressors against Israel only
two times: in 1948 and 1973.
The Israelis, on the contrary, are more than well-known (actually
"famous") for their aggressive wars (1956, 1967, 1970, 1982 etc.,
etc.)
"


1. I think that the facts I brought show clearly an Arab aggression on
1967.
2. I think that they show clearly that Israel couldn't prevent the
war. The other choice of Israel, which was a "no choice", was to be
annihilated. How come you interpret a no choice war as an aggression?

I'm not persisting on this issue in order to "win the debate". If you
were right and I was wrong then I learned something new. But it's
important for me to fix the false impression (on my opinion) that you
created, saying that Israel was the aggressor on 1967 and the Arab
were not the aggressors.

I'll appreciate your answer to this specific point, in light of the
facts I posted.



- especially in the light of the
fact that what you posted is not the least changing the fact that Israel
committed far more aggressions against its "neighbours" plus simply ignored
every single related UN resolution so far then the Arabs will ever manage
(not that the Arabs are sheeps in the coral either, but that was the
point)....



I disagree with you, but for now it will be enough for me to show that
the only aggressors in 1967 were the Arabs.

If it's important to you, then we could check specifically war after
war, incident after incident. Maybe then and when looking on the wider
picture we could find arguments we both agree upon.


BTW, which time do we have? May 1967 or September 2003?


It is you who brought the 1967 matter into this thread, not me. For me
it's just important to correct your false claim (on my opinion)
regarding that war.


Has Egypt blocked
the Tyran Straits just few days back, or should it this time be the talk
about the Saudis eventually buying EF-2000s?

(I need these answers to understand the theat for Israel emerging from
eventual Saudi-British negotiations for Eurofighters, so thanks in advance
for an answer that will be similarly comprehensive as your last one)



1. If you try to insinuate that the blockade of the Tiran straits
wasn't a proper casus belly, or that the six days war wasn't a no
choice war for Israel, then look at what I wrote above.
2. If you are honestly trying to find out whether the "talk about the
Saudis eventually buying EF-2000s" will prompt Israel to open a war,
then the answer is no.
3. Saudi-British negotiations are not an existential threat for
Israel.
4. I don't have the capability to do an exact assessment of the threat
to Israel in case that Saudia or Egypt will buy Eurofighters. And this
is why I started this thread. To get more information.

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?

"phil hunt" wrote in message
.. .
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.

Phil, there is always a similar explanation when a gov wants to find a way
out.

Here in Austria, we spend EUR 40 million a day for stuff that is not needed,
and structures too old and unable to modernize. And still, a majority of the
population is against the EF-2000s, because these should be "unaffordable"
and "too expensive".... The Norwegians don't lack money, but want to save
more for their "future generations", which will have to live with the fact
that their country is not an oil exporter any more. And the Greeks, well,
that's really a special story....

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.

Well, that's the difference between the US producers, and the EADS: the last
will have little problems in supplying the full technical and software
documentations to their clients. The US are frequently reluctant to do so.
In the case of the EF-2000 this will be ultimately important to do, as
otherwise the plane would be useless for the end-user.

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?

Who cares about the past?

Call this al-Yamamah III if you like. That's the way the Saudis think.

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?

For all the possible reasons: as first, the Saudis might for the first time
since the WWII buy combat aircraft without the USA having even a slightest
word to say or decide about their decision. The Saudis might get a "full
standard" fighter and not a downgraded "something", like F-15S. The Saudis
will be paying billions of bucks to the Europeans, and not to the USA - and
do this as long as the EF-2000s might be in their service. The USA will have
absolutely no control over these assets in Saudi hands, and thus not be able
to prevent their _eventual_ use against US allies in the area etc., etc.,
etc....

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.

Well, from what I can understand this is not really the wish of the British
public....

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?

Regardless the sum, it's your bet.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:11:24 GMT, Tom Cooper wrote:

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.

Phil, there is always a similar explanation when a gov wants to find a way
out.

Here in Austria, we spend EUR 40 million a day for stuff that is not needed,
and structures too old and unable to modernize.

I would imagine all govmts waste money, as do all large
organisations in general -- what point are you trying to make?

And still, a majority of the
population is against the EF-2000s, because these should be "unaffordable"
and "too expensive"....

The same could be argued for any Austrian military expenditure; so
it's up to the Austrian people to decide what sort of military
posture they want, and then spending money accordingly. If Austria
wants to have an air force, Eurofighter is not a bad choice as far
as value for money goes.

The Norwegians don't lack money, but want to save
more for their "future generations", which will have to live with the fact
that their country is not an oil exporter any more. And the Greeks, well,
that's really a special story....

Greece has been historically in adversity with Turkey.

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.

Well, that's the difference between the US producers, and the EADS: the last
will have little problems in supplying the full technical and software
documentations to their clients. The US are frequently reluctant to do so.

Then no-one with any sense will buy from them. Note that in
mass-market software, this is already happening: many countries[1]
are moving away from Microsoft Windows towards Linux because they
don't want the US govmt to spy on them, or to be dependent on forign
technology.


[1]: e.g. Germany, Peru, Venezuela, Brazil, Thailand, China, Japan,
South Korea.

In the case of the EF-2000 this will be ultimately important to do, as
otherwise the plane would be useless for the end-user.

So Eurofighter will supply the relevent information, yes?

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?

Who cares about the past?

My point being that that was a British contract to export arms to
Saudi; it's happened in the past, which is an indication that it
is plausible it'll happen in future.

For security reasons? Or commercial ones? Or both?

For all the possible reasons: as first, the Saudis might for the first time
since the WWII buy combat aircraft without the USA having even a slightest
word to say or decide about their decision. The Saudis might get a "full
standard" fighter and not a downgraded "something", like F-15S.

Clearly it'd be in the Saudis interests to do this.

The Saudis
will be paying billions of bucks to the Europeans, and not to the USA - and
do this as long as the EF-2000s might be in their service. The USA will have
absolutely no control over these assets in Saudi hands, and thus not be able
to prevent their _eventual_ use against US allies in the area etc., etc.,
etc....

Which is, of course, a selling point for the European arms industry.

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

Well, from what I can understand this is not really the wish of the British
public....

Depends how the question is put to them. Phrase it in terms of
employment: should thousands of skilled British workers be put on
the dole, blighting whole communities for generations, or should the
govmt support the retention of jobs -- and it's decent well paid
jobs we're talking about, not ****ty little McJobs or working in a
call center. Put like that, I'm sure how the British public would
respond.

Not only that, doing otherwise is demeaning. The USA would never
accept a British veto of US arms shipments, so why should we of
theirs? I'm all in favour of Britian being an ally with the USA, but
I'll never support Britain being subordinate.

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

Regardless the sum, it's your bet.

Not sure what you're getting at.

--
A: top posting

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