|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#22
July 7th 03, 06:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message om...
(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 ) In other words, your more-than-a-hint that China has python 4 is wrong. And at least one site indicates the J-10 already has the Pythin 4 capability, see: home.iae.nl/users/wbergmns/info/j10.htm This is not what the article says (and this is probably why you didn't brought quotes from it). 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 No evidence, just an opinion article with from the Heritage with a header: "How America's Friends Are Building China's Military Power" 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, Not True 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....? After a quick google search Chile: "Chile will be the first F-16 customer for which Lockheed Martin has integrated the Rafael Python 4 off-boresight missile" (AviationNow) http://www.awgnet.com/shownews/02fidae/airfrm07.htm India: Python 4, Derby For Indian Jaguars & Mirages http://www.defense-update.com/news/india-missiles.htm Singapo Don't know about Singapore but I've found: "Singapore aircraft are allegedly also fitted with Python 4 air-air-missiles by Rafael". http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRhe...05/FR0005d.htm But China don't have it. Brooks 
|
|
#23
July 7th 03, 09:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Quant" wrote in message om... "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message news:be9rkt$7ht$1 What's wrong with the "security of supply" from Rafael? 1) The base consumption level is lower and if the product becomes unprofitable Israel could drop it altogether and opt for AIM-9 2) Israel is in an unstable region of the world in which the disruption of the Rafael plant is rather more likely than that of BAE or Raytheon. 3) There are considerable political complications doing defense business with Israel. It would be unfortunate if your Arab Oil suppliers cut you off because you bought Israeli weapons for example. 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"). More probably because India was subject to a US arms embargo at the time as a result of its nuclear weapons program. Keith
|
|
#24
July 7th 03, 10:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Quant) wrote in message . com...
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message om... (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 ) In other words, your more-than-a-hint that China has python 4 is wrong. You DO need to repeat that reading comprehension course; I said that Israel had sold the Python to the PLAAF, not any specific version. That is undeniably true, as the PRC even has their own version of Python 3 in production. As to whether that includes the Python 4 or not at this point, the jury seems to still be out (and Israel does not seem to be very forthcoming with exactly *what* they have provided to the PRC, or what they are trying to currently market to them). Wonder why? And at least one site indicates the J-10 already has the Pythin 4 capability, see: home.iae.nl/users/wbergmns/info/j10.htm This is not what the article says (and this is probably why you didn't brought quotes from it). Read the specs, friend. Python 4 is indeed listed as an available weapon for the J-10 in the aforementioned. Still having problems with that reading, huh? 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 No evidence, just an opinion article with from the Heritage with a header: "How America's Friends Are Building China's Military Power" Which is one heck of a lot more than you have offered other than your own less-than-lofty pronouncements. can you find any sites that say that Israel has not either offered or already sold Python 4 to the PRC? 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, Not True LOL! Ever heard of the PL-8? It is a licensed copy of the Python 3. See: http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/weapon/pl8.asp 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. Well, it seems we KNOW they have the Python 3, and as I have shown you, there is significant buzz about them either already having, or having been offered at least, the Python 4. Please show us something other than your fervid rants that claims otherwise. 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....? After a quick google search Chile: "Chile will be the first F-16 customer for which Lockheed Martin has integrated the Rafael Python 4 off-boresight missile" (AviationNow) http://www.awgnet.com/shownews/02fidae/airfrm07.htm India: Python 4, Derby For Indian Jaguars & Mirages http://www.defense-update.com/news/india-missiles.htm Singapo Don't know about Singapore but I've found: "Singapore aircraft are allegedly also fitted with Python 4 air-air-missiles by Rafael". http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRhe...05/FR0005d.htm But China don't have it. So, you were "lying" before, when you said that only Chile and India had it, huh? Therein lies the problem of trying to (even in the face of third party references otherwise) call somebody a "liar"; it can boomerang back and bite you squarely in the pesterior. You might therefore find sitting a bit uncomfortable for a while... Brooks Brooks
|
|
#25
July 7th 03, 10:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(JGB) wrote in message . com...
(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, Think again; when they have already said "no", then they have established the fact that they want to be able to control our access. That is their right--but it is also good enough reason for us to choose another, more reliably obtained system. and (b) even so, the US could always switch to AIM-9X or any other missile if there really was such a problem. No way. Imagine that we had selected Python, and we bought the first year's production run. Meanwhile, we have killed AIM-9X (we can't after all purchase two entirely different AAM's for the same requirement). Year number two )or three, or five, or whatever) comes up, and Israel decides it is truly ****ed over some US decision and refuses to sell further Pythons--which puts the US in a real bind, as we can't just snap our fingers and pick up AIM-9X where we left off X years previously. 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? Big difference. The US is *paying* for that Israeli R&D and much of their procurement costs. The only Israeli programs that we can outright deny Israel the right of selling elsewhere are those that have US contributions to them. Israel wants to run its own show, fine--stop requesting US funds and support. As far as Phalcon went, Israel decided it would rather not **** off the US and risk ****ing off the PRC--their decision in the end. That the US was pursuing its own interests should be understandable. 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.  Nobody is that huffy about it; I don't recall much serious consideration of Python in this regard in the first place. The last Israeli missile that we procured (and last I knew were still procuring, even though the USAF did not really want it) was Have Nap (IIRC that was the designation); that USAF procurement types may still be tasting a bit of bile over that politically motivated procurement program is also understandable, IMO. And before you accuse me of some ludicrous anti-Israel bias, I'd add that we have had some pretty good success with some Israeli products, Litening targeting pods being a good example (and note that in that case the supply security issue has been ameliorated by having a US partner firm produce them for the US customers; had Israel gone the same route with Python, who knows? Producing components for a US partner would have been much more profitable than being an "also ran" when the com[petition was over). But like any source, you offer some good and some not-so-good products (I can recall our getting a batch of .45 cal ammo from IMI that we learned to try to avoid like the plague; don't know why, but as surely as I'd load a magazine with those rounds in my old M1911A1, it would jam repeatedly--pull those rounds and replace them with (my own) Federal ammo, and it worked smooth as a sewing machine). Brooks Brooks
|
|
#26
July 7th 03, 10:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kevin Brooks wrote:
snip And before you accuse me of some ludicrous anti-Israel bias, I'd add that we have had some pretty good success with some Israeli products, Litening targeting pods being a good example (and note that in that case the supply security issue has been ameliorated by having a US partner firm produce them for the US customers; had Israel gone the same route with Python, who knows? Producing components for a US partner would have been much more profitable than being an "also ran" when the com[petition was over). But like any source, you offer some good and some not-so-good products (I can recall our getting a batch of .45 cal ammo from IMI that we learned to try to avoid like the plague; don't know why, but as surely as I'd load a magazine with those rounds in my old M1911A1, it would jam repeatedly--pull those rounds and replace them with (my own) Federal ammo, and it worked smooth as a sewing machine). Combination long case/weak load? We had similar problems with some ammo lots (our own production) in the Browning HP Mk II* and could only use it in SMGs. -- Andrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
|
|
#27
July 8th 03, 12:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message om...
(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 As long as the US insists on selling the Arabs surrounding Israel, and in still some cases technically at war with her sophisticated weapons systems, I don't understand the objection to ISrael selling China (a nation NOT at war with the US) some of its sophisticated weaponry as well!? If the US wants to negotiate a mutual agreement with Israel, where if the US ceases to sell Egypt then Israel will cease to sell China, it ought to do so. It should be reciprocal. Why should the US be allowed to sell Israel's sworn enemies modern deadly weaponry while Israel is called a traitor when it seeks to do the same to countries that don't even border on the US? Now if the US and MExico were in a technical state of war, and Israel was selling it weaponry, I could understand the objection. But China is practically on the other end of the earth with respect to the US. Why the double standard?
|
|
#28
July 8th 03, 01:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kevin Brooks wrote: And before you accuse me of some ludicrous anti-Israel bias, I'd add that we have had some pretty good success with some Israeli products, Litening targeting pods being a good example (and note that in that case the supply security issue has been ameliorated by having a US partner firm produce them for the US customers; Israel manufacturers sensors for all US Litening pods. "The team of Northrop Grumman Corp. and Rafael, the Israeli Armament Development Authority, has been awarded the contract to supply the sensor pods to both the Guard and the Reserve. Rafael supplies the forward (sensor) section, and Northrop Grumman supplies the aft (electronics) section of the pod." http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...s/litening.htm
|
|
#29
July 8th 03, 04:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com...
(JGB) wrote in message . com... (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 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, Think again; when they have already said "no", then they have established the fact that they want to be able to control our access. That is their right--but it is also good enough reason for us to choose another, more reliably obtained system. I guess they don't want it reverse engineered either, or sold to Egypt or Saudi Arabia. After all, we steal technology just as they do. Nonetheless, I suppose you make a good point. and (b) even so, the US could always switch to AIM-9X or any other missile if there really was such a problem. No way. Imagine that we had selected Python, and we bought the first year's production run. Meanwhile, we have killed AIM-9X (we can't after all purchase two entirely different AAM's for the same requirement). Year number two )or three, or five, or whatever) comes up, and Israel decides it is truly ****ed over some US decision and refuses to sell further Pythons--which puts the US in a real bind, as we can't just snap our fingers and pick up AIM-9X where we left off X years previously. Not likely, but as you say, if the US does not control production, it won't buy it. It's the prerogative of being a big power. 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? Big difference. The US is *paying* for that Israeli R&D and much of their procurement costs. Methinks you overstate the amount of R&D money that comes from Uncle Sam. I personally knew of quite a number of good Israeli R&D based companies that have never seen a penny of US aid. Most of it stays in the US anyhow. And most of the US aid barely offsets the massive amount of US arms we sell to Israel's enemies surrounding her. Israel's R&D HAS to be superior because in the future it won't be facing soviet built MiG but US built F-15s and F-16s in Egyptian, Saudi or Jordanian hands. And so Israeli companies must be more innovative and BETTER because Israel must now be able to defeat US-built systems in enemy hands rather than Soviet-built equipment as in the past. The only Israeli programs that we can outright deny Israel the right of selling elsewhere are those that have US contributions to them. Israel wants to run its own show, fine--stop requesting US funds and support. Ha. Oh, yeah, just like Sweden. Only Sweden doesn't face a miasma of enemies armed to the teeth by America. As far as Phalcon went, Israel decided it would rather not **** off the US and risk ****ing off the PRC--their decision in the end. That the US was pursuing its own interests should be understandable. Of course. And the US isn't paying Israel $3 billion for nothing either. When it says "sit" ISrael has to sit. And when it says "roll over" Israel has to roll over. And when it says, "play dead" Israel has to, well... 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. Nobody is that huffy about it; I don't recall much serious consideration of Python in this regard in the first place. The last Israeli missile that we procured (and last I knew were still procuring, even though the USAF did not really want it) was Have Nap (IIRC that was the designation); Yeah, that was a dud. And I don't believe that anyone should have to buy a dud from anyone for political reasons, in either direction. I believe in merit; that either country should only have to buy the BEST system on the market that meets the objective criteria and specification laid down. To buy less than the best for the buck is to cheat yourself and not play fair. that USAF procurement types may still be tasting a bit of bile over that politically motivated procurement program is also understandable, IMO. And before you accuse me of some ludicrous anti-Israel bias, I'd add that we have had some pretty good success with some Israeli products, Litening targeting pods being a good example (and note that in that case the supply security issue has been ameliorated by having a US partner firm produce them for the US customers; had Israel gone the same route with Python, who knows? Producing components for a US partner would have been much more profitable than being an "also ran" when the com[petition was over). But like any source, you offer some good and some not-so-good products (I can recall our getting a batch of .45 cal ammo from IMI that we learned to try to avoid like the plague; don't know why, but as surely as I'd load a magazine with those rounds in my old M1911A1, it would jam repeatedly--pull those rounds and replace them with (my own) Federal ammo, and it worked smooth as a sewing machine). I'm fully aware that Israel produces cheap junk as well as some really nifty stuff. I say the only fair way to do things is to have a shootout, where all competitive systems are identically tested under the most realistic conditions, and may the best one win - and damn all the politics. I know that that is pie-in-the sky Xanadu, but that's the way things should be if this were a fair world.
|
|
#30
July 8th 03, 04:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Andrew Chaplin wrote in message ...
Kevin Brooks wrote: snip And before you accuse me of some ludicrous anti-Israel bias, I'd add that we have had some pretty good success with some Israeli products, Litening targeting pods being a good example (and note that in that case the supply security issue has been ameliorated by having a US partner firm produce them for the US customers; had Israel gone the same route with Python, who knows? Producing components for a US partner would have been much more profitable than being an "also ran" when the com[petition was over). But like any source, you offer some good and some not-so-good products (I can recall our getting a batch of .45 cal ammo from IMI that we learned to try to avoid like the plague; don't know why, but as surely as I'd load a magazine with those rounds in my old M1911A1, it would jam repeatedly--pull those rounds and replace them with (my own) Federal ammo, and it worked smooth as a sewing machine). Combination long case/weak load? We had similar problems with some ammo lots (our own production) in the Browning HP Mk II* and could only use it in SMGs. I don't know. But IIRC the cases were *aluminum*, which may have had something to do with it I guess. The only other ammo related problem I ever ran into (other than an Army-wide stoppage of Mk 19 training at one point due to some touchy 40mm HEDP fuzes) was with .50 cal linked; we were running an M2 range with ammo obtained from another entity (a TDA, the Armor-Engineer Board) which had a big surplus it wanted to get rid of before the end of the TY. We thought it was a real bonanza for us, until we discovered on the range that the link system for the ..50 cal MG mounted on the CEV/M60 series MBT's, which is what we got, was not compatible with the M2. Out of around 10K rounds I had on hand delivered to the range, we managed to send *one* downrange before discovering the problem (most of us being completely ignorant that there *was* a difference). It was not a pretty in the BN S-3 or S-4 shops that day... Brooks
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| how to force jeppview charts with flitestar? | rexwind | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | January 19th 05 11:13 AM |
| USA - Air Force one | franck jeamourra | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | June 11th 04 11:40 AM |
| 100 Air Force Overviews online !! | Frank Noort | Aerobatics | 0 | May 17th 04 06:47 PM |
| Who's At Fault in UAV/Part91 MAC? | Larry Dighera | Instrument Flight Rules | 24 | April 29th 04 03:08 PM |
| RV-7a baggage area | David Smith | Home Built | 32 | December 15th 03 04:08 AM |
Linear Mode
