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

(JGB) 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 )

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?

No double standard. The difference is we are providing some $14K per
Israeli in various forms of aid each year. It kindo f sucks when you
provide *that* level of aid and get in return not only espionage
directed at your own, but advanced weapons sold to those who you won't
sell to yourself because you realize they are indeed a serious
potential regional threat (or maybe not so regional, seeing as how the
PRC (actually one of its PLA spin-off companies) bribed their way into
control of port operations on the Panama Canal).

Brooks

(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com...
(JGB) 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...

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?

No double standard. The difference is we are providing some $14K per
Israeli in various forms of aid each year.

Except that at least $8,400 of that $14K is going into the pockets
of US workers in defense industries inside the US. Nor do most
ISraelis
live inside F-15s or Apaches. But what you're saying is, that the aid
is actually a LEASH, to be used to keep Israel in line. You don't want
ISraelis to make a living selling arms the same way US defense workers
do, but rather give them welfare checks so that they will be dependent
on the US holding the aid leash in the right hand, and who can then
belittle them for taking it while selling ISrael's bordering enemies
advanced arms
with left hand. Right?

It kindo f sucks when you
provide *that* level of aid and get in return not only espionage
directed at your own,

You mean like when the US flew U-2s over Israel to spy on Dimona back
in the early '60s? Or when ISrael was forced to accept inspectors to
come
into Dimona sent by Kennedy and Johnson? Or do you mean when the US
leaves
Israel in the lurch during the Six Day War, and instead of sending a
flotilla
to open up the blockade that that the Egyptians put on the Port of
Eilat
(which they promised to do in the '57 Dulles-Eban memorandum), the US
instead sends its most sophisticated spy ship, the LIberty, to
spy on ISraeli combat movements? All while tiny ISrael is fighting ALL
ALONE
on all fronts? Then the US sends a spy ship smack up close to the
ISraeli coast?

... but advanced weapons sold to those who you won't
sell to yourself because you realize they are indeed a serious
potential regional threat (or maybe not so regional, seeing as how the
PRC (actually one of its PLA spin-off companies) bribed their way into
control of port operations on the Panama Canal).

Why are you ****ed about the Panama Canal when you stopped England,
France
and ISrael in 1956 from halting Nasser's nationalizing the Suez Canal?
Or when you fail to meet your written obligation to ISrael, which
withdrew
from the Sinai in 1957 BASED ON GOOD FAITH of the written promise
given
by Dulles to Eban to send a flotiall if Nasser ever tried it again, to
induce Israel to withdraw at that time. And then, you ignore your
written promise
a mere decade later when Nasser indeed does a repeat performance,
thereby forcing ISrael to open the EGyptian blockade all alone and by
itself? And
Israel is supposed to trust the US after that?

And who the hell is going to be crazy enough to try to blockade the
Panama Canal? China? Russia? Israel? You cannot be serious about this
mumbo jumbo that the PRC could ever control and deny US ships from
using the Canal. That is about
as absurd a concept as the moon being made of green cheese. I don't
think
the PRC is going to risk a nuclear war with the US to block US ships
from
traversing the canal. How silly can one get?

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"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

Israel can't afford to use second-rate equipment, especially since the
US is supplying that equipment to its bordering enemies. It has to produce
a superior product or lose the coming war, which in Israel's case means
losing the country. The US can afford to fight and lose wars and come back
again. Israel does not have that luxury. To the US, second rate equipment
only means the loss of a few pilots. To Israel it means the possible loss
of its total existence.


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.

Who knows these days who is more secure? The US has lost tall buildings
in the center of Manhattan.

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.

It's unfortunate that the US has put itself in the position where a few
Arabs can grap it by the balls in that way. After all, it was the US
and Britain that discovered and developed that oil in the first place.
Israel wouldn't take that crap from the Arabs.

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").

I don't know about Chile, but the Pakistani Airforce is a very good outfit
and the Indian Air Force would need a superior product to beat the Pakis
in the air. The Pakis are well trained.

More probably because India was subject to a US arms embargo
at the time as a result of its nuclear weapons program.

Not necessarily. Israel produces more bang for the buck, and Israel cannot
be pressured by Pakistan to sell her an equivalent missile. Hence, Pakistan
must buy an inferior AAM from the US, or the UK, France or Russia. When
it comes to any future possible conflict with Pakistan, India wants to win.
And if a pilot KNOWS he is going up against a good pilot in a good plane,
he wants to have a better fire control system and AAM to win. It's that
simple.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"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.

POLAND was not a potential ADVERSARY! While waiting to be admitted
into
NATO, Poland was leaning towards an Israeli/Polish helicopter deal,
where
a Polish helicopter would be upgraded, and all the electronics and
weaponry
would be Israeli, over purchasing Apaches from Boeing. The contract
was to be
for $800 million, of which Israeli companies stood to make about half.
Well Boeing wasn't going to lay back and take that crap, so it leaned
on congress which then apparently leaned on Poland. I mean, the US
wasn't taking Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and others into NATO
just to have more countries to defend, for Chrissake! It needs more
MARKETS for F-16s and Apaches That's the reason for the NATO
expansion in the first place!!!
It sure as hell wasn't going to sign treaties of defense with these
countries
only to let Israel sell them their weapon systems

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

Oh yeah, at the time there was objection to ISrael selling Kfirs to
Taiwan,
as we were cozying up with the PRC and didn't want them ****ed. Now we
don't
want ISrael selling the PRC for fear of what it could do to Taiwan!
Give me
a break!

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.

Whose security? Why do we have any military in East Asia anyway? Do
the Japanese or the Koreans want the US there nowadays?

jukita wrote in message .. .
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


Many items the US use are produced in Israel. Cluster bombs and the
ITALD (decoy against AA missiles) comes to mind.

During the war in Iraq the Arab media made a fuss about pictures of
used ITALD found by Iraqis with "Made in Israel" on it.

(JGB) wrote in message . com...
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com...
(JGB) 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...

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?

No double standard. The difference is we are providing some $14K per
Israeli in various forms of aid each year.

Except that at least $8,400 of that $14K is going into the pockets
of US workers in defense industries inside the US. Nor do most
ISraelis
live inside F-15s or Apaches. But what you're saying is, that the aid
is actually a LEASH, to be used to keep Israel in line. You don't want
ISraelis to make a living selling arms the same way US defense workers
do, but rather give them welfare checks so that they will be dependent
on the US holding the aid leash in the right hand, and who can then
belittle them for taking it while selling ISrael's bordering enemies
advanced arms
with left hand. Right?

Nope, wrong.


It kindo f sucks when you
provide *that* level of aid and get in return not only espionage
directed at your own,

You mean like when the US flew U-2s over Israel to spy on Dimona back
in the early '60s?

What U-2's?

Or when ISrael was forced to accept inspectors to
come
into Dimona sent by Kennedy and Johnson?

Again, a terrible price to pay for US aid; not that I have ever heard
that the incident you mentioned actually happened, though.

Or do you mean when the US
leaves
Israel in the lurch during the Six Day War, and instead of sending a
flotilla
to open up the blockade that that the Egyptians put on the Port of
Eilat
(which they promised to do in the '57 Dulles-Eban memorandum), the US
instead sends its most sophisticated spy ship, the LIberty, to
spy on ISraeli combat movements? All while tiny ISrael is fighting ALL
ALONE
on all fronts? Then the US sends a spy ship smack up close to the
ISraeli coast?

LOL! First, if you are preaching a pro-Israel argument, bringing the
USS Liberty into the agenda is the *last* thing you want to do; there
are a lot of us who wish the USN counterstrikes *had* been allowed
(which would have left israel without a naval force that would amount
to much). And preaching about "tiny Israel" in the 67 War doesn't
garner much sympathy either. Again, go back and read Begin's later
comments about the real lack of *necessity* for israel to have gone to
war in the first place...but you know more about it than Mr. Begin
did, right?


... but advanced weapons sold to those who you won't
sell to yourself because you realize they are indeed a serious
potential regional threat (or maybe not so regional, seeing as how the
PRC (actually one of its PLA spin-off companies) bribed their way into
control of port operations on the Panama Canal).

Why are you ****ed about the Panama Canal when you stopped England,
France
and ISrael in 1956 from halting Nasser's nationalizing the Suez Canal?

LOL again. Try a reading comprehension course. Who said I am ****ed
about the PC? I happen to believe that giving it to the Panamanians
was one of the only intelligent acts of the Carter administration. I
am, however, quite suspicious of why a PLA-sponsored firm reportedly
engaged in rather high-stakes bribery, etc., to gain that contract...

Or when you fail to meet your written obligation to ISrael, which
withdrew
from the Sinai in 1957 BASED ON GOOD FAITH of the written promise
given
by Dulles to Eban to send a flotiall if Nasser ever tried it again, to
induce Israel to withdraw at that time.

So you say...anything to back up this ranting?

And then, you ignore your
written promise
a mere decade later when Nasser indeed does a repeat performance,
thereby forcing ISrael to open the EGyptian blockade all alone and by
itself? And
Israel is supposed to trust the US after that?

I could actually care less whether israel trusts the US; I do know,
however, that the US sure as heck can't trust Israel.


And who the hell is going to be crazy enough to try to blockade the
Panama Canal? China? Russia? Israel?

Back to that reading comprehension course with you...

You cannot be serious about this
mumbo jumbo that the PRC could ever control and deny US ships from
using the Canal. That is about
as absurd a concept as the moon being made of green cheese. I don't
think
the PRC is going to risk a nuclear war with the US to block US ships
from
traversing the canal. How silly can one get?

Gee, you do get all wound up rather easily, don't you? The PRC having
an ability to influence PC operations does indeed pose a situation
that we would have to monitor, as it is the shortest route for rapid
reinforcement of the Seventh Fleet in the event a serious crisis were
to erupt over taiwan (you know, that little island that Israel fell
all over itself to cultivate ties with, then just as quickly fell all
over itself to cut those ties in favor of selling all of that nifty
military hardware to the PRC?).

Brooks

(JGB) wrote in message . com...


You mean like when the US flew U-2s over Israel to spy on Dimona back
in the early '60s? Or when ISrael was forced to accept inspectors to
come
into Dimona sent by Kennedy and Johnson? Or do you mean when the US
leaves
Israel in the lurch during the Six Day War, and instead of sending a
flotilla
to open up the blockade that that the Egyptians put on the Port of
Eilat
(which they promised to do in the '57 Dulles-Eban memorandum), the US
instead sends its most sophisticated spy ship, the LIberty, to
spy on ISraeli combat movements? All while tiny ISrael is fighting ALL
ALONE
on all fronts? Then the US sends a spy ship smack up close to the
ISraeli coast?



Thanks, I didn't know all that. Its the first time I hear about the 57
memorandum.

It reminds me all the concessions Israel now pushed to give even
though its clear that Israel will be the only side who fulfils his
commitments. Another reason we shouldn't rely on any promise of
nuclear umbrela from the US or any other "on paper" guarantees someone
is offering us.

"JGB" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"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

Israel can't afford to use second-rate equipment, especially since the
US is supplying that equipment to its bordering enemies. It has to produce
a superior product or lose the coming war, which in Israel's case means
losing the country. The US can afford to fight and lose wars and come back
again. Israel does not have that luxury. To the US, second rate equipment
only means the loss of a few pilots. To Israel it means the possible loss
of its total existence.


If you think the Aim-9 series of missiles is second rate you ought
to change your choice of recreational drug. I'm a great fan
of both ASRAAM and Python but lets not get silly here.

Keith

In message , JGB
writes
I believe Israel sold China the Python 3, which is an old generation
AAM from the 1980s, of no real threat to the US.

Okay: you fly along and I'll fire a Python 3 at you.

Back in 1982, British pilots were getting 80% hits with the AIM-9L
Sidewinder (the Python 3 is supposed to be better) against Argentinian
pilots in Israeli-built planes, trained by Israeli pilots, and whose
courage was demonstrated beyond doubt.

Israel casually exporting third-generation IR-AAMs is a serious
proliferation issue.

But the Harpoon cruise
missiles the US sold to EGypt are a very real, lethal threat to Israel.

What crucial targets can they hit?

Why is Egypt a real, current threat? (Peace treaty in 1977, if I
remember right, and no aggression in thirty years)


Either proliferating weapons is fine (in which case Israel can make no
complaint about who the US and its allies sell what to) or it isn't. If
Israel wants to be listened to about the dangers of proliferation, it
needs to be less export-driven about its own sales policy.
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

In message , JGB
writes
"Keith Willshaw"
wrote in message ...
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

So what? Is China at war with the US?

Egypt isn't at war with Israel, but you're whining about US sales there.

Egypt borders on Israel, a few minutes from ISrael flying time, and has a
very cold "peace" with Israel.

Egypt is a US ally that has a very 'cold' peace with Israel and is at
risk of pre-emptive attack, AS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE! (if you're going
over the top, so will I)

Saudi Arabia practically borders on
Israel and is still technically at war with Israel,

When has Saudi Arabia waged active war against Israel?

and certainly doesn't
recognize its right to exist. Does that stop the US from selling them
F-15's and F-16's and M-1 tanks and Harpoon Cruise missiles? I don't quite
get the double standard. Explain it to me.

When did US (or allied) aircraft stage from Israel against Iraq in 1991
or 2003 or any time in between?

The missions had to be flown. They weren't flown from Israel. Part of
being a reliable ally is providing bases and flight rights. Israel
wasn't useful.


Which way does the money flow? There's the answer. The golden rule: the
US has the gold, so it makes the rules.

Israel is welcome to reject all US aid and assistance. (Bet it won't!).
The US makes profitable sales to countries Israel doesn't like. But the
US bankrolls Israel, not vice versa, therefore the US is able to make
its irritation about Israel's promiscuous exports stick while Israel
confines its protests to verbiage.

(And personally I'd be a _lot_ more worried about Syria than Egypt, but
that's just me.)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam