Why the Royal Australian Air Force went for Israeli Python-4 AAM's over US AIM-9L's

Hmmm... the ASRAAM is it really a 'Short' range missile or an
AMRAAM????.

It sort of gets a bit blurry with ASRAAM.

Cheers
John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-

Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

(Quant) wrote in message . com...
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com...
(JGB) wrote in message . com...
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/python4.html

Wrong again. First you claim that Python is an AMRAAM (it isn't), then
you say it has been placed into service by the USAF (it hasn't), and
now you claim that the RAAF has opted for it (and it hasn't). Why are
you so hung up on Python, and why can't you get *any* of the facts on
it right? BTW, one country that *has* purchased Python from Israel
is...the PRC.

Brooks


Wrong as usual.

Nope, the PLAAF has had the Python 3 in service for years, and...

"China and Israel continue to cooperate on the J-10 fighter program,
and Israel is reported to be competing with Russia to provide China
with a new, helmet-sighted, air-to-air missile. Israel may also be
offering China its PYTHON-4 missile, which uses the same Elba helmet
display as the American AIM-9X missile slated to enter U.S.
inventories in the next decade." (Source:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/...hinasess4.html )

And at least one site indicates the J-10 already has the Pythin 4
capability,
see: home.iae.nl/users/wbergmns/info/j10.htm

And then there is:

"Israel also is reported to be trying to sell China its new Python 4
air-to-air missile, the best air-to-air missile now in use.13 This
missile uses an Elbit helmet sighting system." Source:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Asi...fic/BG1146.cfm

The last one tracks with the numerous previous reports that Israel is
indeed trying to sell not onlt the HMSS but also and advanced radar to
the PLAAF for the J-10.

Meanwhile Janes was reporting the following: "Israel blocks
manufacture of Python 4 in USA" (12/06/00, Janes Defence Weekly). So,
while quite willing to allow the PRC to manufacture Pythin, Israel is
not so willing to allow its "close ally" the US that ability. Stranger
and stranger...


China don't have the python 4 he talked about.

Maybe, maybe not. Others have not ruled that out as forcibly as you
seem to.

And as usual you also know you're wrong (its called lying).

From a gabnder at the above, it would appear that you have once again
jumped the gun...


Chile and India use it.

Gee, are you "lying" here? What about Singapore....?

Brooks

John Cook wrote in message . ..
Hmmm... the ASRAAM is it really a 'Short' range missile or an
AMRAAM????.

It sort of gets a bit blurry with ASRAAM.

I see your meaning, but in all fairness, there is really only one
missile family known as "AMRAAM", and that is the AIM-120 series. I
think the better (generic) term for the other missiles you are
referring to would be "BVRAAM".

Brooks


Cheers
John Cook

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"JGB" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
news:be9rkt$7ht$1that technical superiority rarely
rates

Actually it rates highly but so does security of supply and frankly
thats not assured for the Python.

Nonsense. Another excuse. It can always be manufactured in the States
under license. Boeing will be manufacturing the Arrow II.


That was not the deal offered, Rafael was trying to sell the missile
not Boeing, US manufacturers were of course pushing Aim-9X

Keith

Add to that the fact that in December of 2000 Janes was reporting that
Israel was blocking the potential manufacture of the Python 4 in the
US; your point concerning security of supply becomes that much more
meaningful in that light.

Brooks

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"JGB" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
news:be9rkt$7ht$1that technical superiority rarely
rates

Actually it rates highly but so does security of supply and frankly
thats not assured for the Python.

Nonsense. Another excuse. It can always be manufactured in the States
under license. Boeing will be manufacturing the Arrow II.


That was not the deal offered, Rafael was trying to sell the missile
not Boeing, US manufacturers were of course pushing Aim-9X

Keith

Are you familiar with the Polish helicopter deal a few years back
with Israel that Beoing had quashed by leaning on congress to lean
on Poland with not too subtle intimations regarding Poland's membership
in NATO? That one cost ISrael $400 million in lost sales to Poland. $1.2 B
contract with CHina for Phalcons, quashed. Past deals with Ecuador, PEru,
Taiwan for Kfirs back in the '70s quashed. Trust me, Israel EARNS the aid the US
gives it. It pays for it.

"JGB" wrote in message
om...
(Quant) wrote in message
. com...


Wrong as usual.
China don't have the python 4 he talked about.
And as usual you also know you're wrong (its called lying).

I believe Israel sold China the Python 3, which is an old generation
AAM from the 1980s, of no real threat to the US. But the Harpoon cruise
missiles the US sold to EGypt are a very real, lethal threat to Israel.


Python 3 provided a marked improvement in Chinese capability
in comparison to the missiles previously in service and as an agile
all aspect Mach 3 AA missile is a very real threat to ANY aircraft.

Keith

"JGB" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
news:beaana$rsf$1

Are you familiar with the Polish helicopter deal a few years back
with Israel that Beoing had quashed by leaning on congress to lean
on Poland with not too subtle intimations regarding Poland's membership
in NATO? That one cost ISrael $400 million in lost sales to Poland. $1.2 B
contract with CHina for Phalcons, quashed.

The US does tend to frown on the sale of advanced weapons systems
to a potential adversary. The reasons are obvious I'd have thought.

Past deals with Ecuador, PEru,
Taiwan for Kfirs back in the '70s quashed.

Kfir C2's were in fact sold to both Colombia (111) and
Ecuador(12) in 1976

Trust me, Israel EARNS the aid the US
gives it. It pays for it.

What worries many of us is what the US is paying for it
in terms of future security, selling advanced weapons
to China isnt a very friendly act.

Keith

Gee, are you "lying" here? What about Singapore....?


Singapore does not officially admit to have Python 4, but the telltale signs
are there. Singapore's Vipers are equipped with the DASH-3 HMS, thus, make
your own conclusion.

Cheers

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"JGB" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"JGB" wrote in message
om...
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/python4.html

They didnt, they bought ASRAAM instead. The article states Python
was considered not that it was selected.

http://www.airpowerint.com/dtol_arti...tol_hornet.htm

www.adbr.com.au/data/ind_2000.htm

Keith

Oh, well, maybe Rafael will have better luck with its new version,
Python 5, But then, we all know that technical superiority rarely
rates

Actually it rates highly but so does security of supply and frankly
thats not assured for the Python.

Keith



What's wrong with the "security of supply" from Rafael?
Chile preferred the python (Maybe because of the price).
India also preferred it (One of the reasond probably was not trusting
the American "security of supply").

(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"JGB" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
news:be9rkt$7ht$1that technical superiority rarely
rates

Actually it rates highly but so does security of supply and frankly
thats not assured for the Python.

Nonsense. Another excuse. It can always be manufactured in the States
under license. Boeing will be manufacturing the Arrow II.


That was not the deal offered, Rafael was trying to sell the missile
not Boeing, US manufacturers were of course pushing Aim-9X

Keith

Add to that the fact that in December of 2000 Janes was reporting that
Israel was blocking the potential manufacture of the Python 4 in the
US; your point concerning security of supply becomes that much more
meaningful in that light.

I was not aware of that, and thank you for pointing it out. I still think
it's an excuse because (a) I doubt if ISrael is any more insecure source
than a domestic source, and (b) even so, the US could always switch
to AIM-9X or any other missile if there really was such a problem.
I still believe it is protectionism. Not that it is wrong to protect
a domestic source of military supplies, but to be critical of Israel for
taking aid, while selling its enemies three times as much, and then
being critical when it sells some countries the US has some issues with,
and also blocking such sales with threats of cutting off said aid, all while
protecting one's own local industries against Israeli competition is a
bit much, no? But let's face it, US procurement officers are not going
to get jobs in Israeli defense companies after they retire, eh? So I
can understand the natural bias in favor of domestic sources even if they
are not quite as good. But let's not be hypocritical or huffy about it.
DoD business is monkey business like every other business.
Brooks