|
|
|
Rank 5 Registered User
Lockheed Martin isn't tied to NG or Raytheon, & might be interested in an ITAR-free radar for countries which could buy an F-16, but which might not be allowed the latest US technology.Originally Posted by MSphere
The USCG rejected US-made radars for its C-130 upgrade. Border patrol ditto for its patrol aircraft. Both bought Selex. It's a mistake to assume that Americans will always choose American.
Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
Justinian
Rank 5 Registered User
Rank 5 Registered User
Rank 5 Registered User
Rank 5 Registered User
So, the Koreans accuse the Israelis of doing to the same thing to them that the Koreans did to the French when the F-15 beat the Rafale a few years ago?
Rank 5 Registered User
That doesn't make any sense. Every single screw or bushing on the F-16 undergoes ITAR regulations. If Congress were to stop an F-16 deal with a state not allowed the latest tech, then they would stop it even if it had a Selex radar. Unless you have a non-US vendor for every single part of the F-16, then you can spare yourself the hassle.
That's USCG. For some reason they love buying foreign tech. MH-68, HH-65, HC-144, HU-25, definitely not a typical branch of the US forces. USAF don't do anything similar.
Rank 5 Registered User
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...ore%20Fighters
Summary:
Deyz want more fighters
- More F-16s and More Su-30s
- Considering F-5 replacement, F-16 is likely
- Getting some C-297's for transport
- Getting Super Tucanos to replace Broncos
- Getting T-50s for training
- KF-X will replace rest of Hawks
- Want AWACS but will not settle for C-297 variant.. they want BIGGER
- Will finally get weapons for Flankers
- C-235s and 737s will be upgraded
sounds like a pretty respectable force its growing into. F-16 and Flanker combo..
Watch out Australia!
Rank 5 Registered User
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...d%20ASW,%20AEW
South East Asian countries seek ASW and AEW aircraft due to constant intrusions of Chinese military into their airspace/eez waters
Vietnam: looking at P-3 and C-295, to complement or replace Be-12s and Ka-25/27
Philippines: looking at Alenia ATR 42MP, Hawker Beechcraft King Air 350ER, Airbus CN235, Viking Air Twin Otter and Bombardier Q-series. Also considering 24 ex-US F-16s
Malaysia: looking at E-2D, AEW C-295, and Erieye on Embraer EMB-145. For helicopters, looking at Sikorsky MH-60R and the AgustaWestland AW159.
Rank 5 Registered User
Last edited by kirtap; 17th February 2012 at 08:52.
Rank 5 Registered User
If you talking about those Hawk 209, well if KF-X turn out to be an actual development program (at this moment KF-X still just a 'studied' program), it will be ready after 2020, then by that time KF-X will replace not just Hawk 209, but also those F-16.
Anyway, most what the Indonesian AF plan is for replacement. Not something that will worried Australian Shornet and F-35. If Indonesian AF replaced all their squadrons with Pak-fa or J-20, then perhaps it's something that will worried Australian.
Last edited by ananda; 17th February 2012 at 08:57.
Rank 5 Registered User
Will see if ROK, start drop all their future procurement contract with Israel.
Rank 5 Registered User
email Aviation week and complain to them not me.
Rank 5 Registered User
Really? The USAF has never bought foreign aircraft or equipment? :diablo: I think you need to do a bit more studying. But anyway, what's the USAF got to do with it? This is an F-16 variant intended for export, & as an upgrade to existing foreign fleets. There's a separate USAF programme for upgrades to USAF F-16s.
You've missed the point on the ITAR thing. The USA doesn't have a simple sale/no sale policy. There's a spectrum. Some countries aren't allowed any US weapons or military equipment, some are allowed everything except F-22, & there's everything in between. There are many precedents for countries being allowed to buy a system or platform, but not every subsystem, or not the latest model. For example, when Chile bought second hand F-16s from the Netherlands, the US required the Dutch to remove some (but not most) of the MLU kit prior to delivery, & the Chileans weren't allowed all the same avionics as NATO members in their new F-16s.
It's easy to imagine a country being allowed to buy F-16s, but not allowed a US AESA radar either for new aircraft or upgrades.
Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
Justinian
Rank 5 Registered User
The IAF has put into service the first batch of 80 Mi-17V-5.
Russian Mi-17s Enter Service with Indian Air Force
Rank 5 Registered User
Rank 5 Registered User
Rank 5 Registered User
In fact no, whenever there was a comparable domestic option. I am not aware of USAF having bought a foreign design with three US-made options readily available. But maybe you are, please share.
I think it's you who has missed the whole story. F-16V is a project of LM which is an American company. As strange as it may sound, ITAR applies to all subsystems and parts here, even foreign made. If LM decided to integrate Vixen 500 instead of RACR and got an order from say Venezuela, they would not be allowed to "export" the AESA radars once on American ground, even if they are British-made.
You might argue that Venezuela would be able to source the radars directly from Vixen and then let LM integrate them in Venezuela. Yes, that would be theoretically possible... but in that case US Congress would simply veto any other parts of the F-16V upgrade which are US made and the outcome would be the same..
The only way for a non-friendly state to get their F-16s upgraded would be opting for a foreign program. Like FAV has tried with Elbit few years ago. That they finally decided to go for Su-30MK2 says much about how 'easily' this can be done..
Yes, that's easy. But that country will never get an AESA, even a non-US made one... apart from situation when they decide to integrate them by themselves somehow, which requires tremendous domestic supporting infrastructure is beyond doubt. See the case of Iranian F-14s for comparison.
Last edited by MSphere; 17th February 2012 at 12:31.
Rank 5 Registered User
Oh no, here we go again . .. .
The USAF has bought foreign equivalents to US equipment & aircraft, when they thought it was better. There haven't been any recent examples, but that's only because of political interference. Remember that the USAF selected A330 MRTT.
You're confusing two separate issues.
1. US desire to restrict the armaments available to a particular country. This would prevent the installation of, e.g., a Selex Vixen radar in a US-built F-16 intended for such a country, as it prevented the integration of SCALP/Storm Shadow on F-16E.
2. US desire to keep US technology out of the hands of a particular country. This would not prevent the installation of Vixen.
As I've said, it isn't a simple sell/don't sell choice. It's more complicated than that. The USA imposes limits on friendly, not just unfriendly states, but often refrains from interfering when friendly states sell their own equivalents to the embargoed equipment, even when it has US content.
And you keep conflating US purchases with LM's commercial choice to fit radar A, B, or C, & which radar(s) to incorporate in its offered upgrade. They're not connected. There's nothing to stop an existing F-16 operator buying an upgrade from LM which includes Vixen, if LM chooses to offer it, as there is nothing to stop non-US firms offering such upgrades. Look at F-5E upgrades, which have been dominated by the Grifo & EL/M-2032, despite US radars being available, & one of them being chosen by the USAF.
Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
Justinian
Rank 5 Registered User
I am not sure whether this is the apropriate thread for this discussion but I have to say that in your last response you might have talked much but said a little.
First, the USAF indeed hasn't bought any foreign equivalents to US equipment for decades. I knew that exactly as much as you did. Your remark that this was only because of political interference made me laugh, yes guess what, you hit the point, the very same political intereference which will only prevent any deal like that from happening in the future.
I am not confusing any two issues. The point is that the fact whether a state gets a package with F-16 upgrade containing an AESA radar or just a slotted aray APG-68 solely depends on US willingness to allow such sale. If the customer falls into the AESA-OK category, then he can simply opt for US-made AESA and not pay extra for integration of something exotic like a Raven. But if USA don't allow AESA, then it doesn't mean the customer state can escape ITAR by simply freely picking a non-US made AESA radar and have it integrated by LM..
In the light of this I simply fail to see a need for a foreign allegedly non-ITAR AESA radar which effectively still falls under ITAR.Which was exactly the missing point of your original response..
There is one thing that will prevent an existing F-16 operator buying an upgrade from LM which includes Vixen - because LM will never offer it. They won't offer it because it doesn't make any sense, unless the Selex is considerably better than RACR or SABR for some reason (which it most probably isn't).
As for the mentioned F-5 upgrades, these were never a point of interest of US companies (mind the old Tiger IV project which didn't get any orders). All F-5 upgrades I can think of are foreign... Brazilian, Chilean or Thai upgrade were integrated by israeli Elbit or Lahav, Swiss had their own RUAG-led program, Singaporean upgrade was led by STAe with the help of Elbit. Indonesian MACAN upgrade was integrated by SABCA in Belgium and Taiwan had their own project based on F-CK-1's avionics. For the obvious reasons there was no obvious preference of US made equipment but you can't expect the same with a LM-led project. You will hardly see a screw in the F-16V upgrade which would not be supplied by US companies, let alone a radar.
Last edited by MSphere; 17th February 2012 at 14:46.
Rank 5 Registered User
Taiwan bought F-16s in the early 1990s (the US was trying to kill the F-CK-1 program), and continue to be able to buy all needed repair parts.
However, when they tried to get an upgrade contract, the US blocked them.
A 3rd-party upgrade might work... but the US might cut off the parts chain.
Rank 4 Registered User
Iraqi pilots coming to Arizona to learn how to fly F-16s
All but a handful of U.S. troops have left Iraq, but the mission to train the Iraqi military is continuing in Tucson, Ariz., where Iraqis will learn how to fly F-16s.
Saddam Hussein’s once formidable air force was obliterated in the course of two wars against the United States. Those fighters that were not destroyed were either buried in sand and thus made inoperable or sent to Iran and Serbia.
Rank 5 Registered User
3rd party upgrades hardly work without the connections to the original manufacturer. Otherwise we would see FAV F-16s with EL/M-2032M radars today, Elbit was more than willing to upgrade Chavez's air force.
Sometimes there is a remote possibility to get some 2nd hand stuff and then rely on the support of the seller's country (Eritrea / Ukraine) but even that is often very limited and complicated to achieve. See the example of FAP (Peru) which were forced to buy several MiG-29 9.13S from Russia to gain access to Russian support for their 9.13/9.51 Fulcrum fleet originally bought from Belarus.
The most extreme case is Iran which had to build almost complete indigenous infrastructure to support their F-14/F-4/F-5 fleet. The quite numerous cases of attempts to illegally export Tomcat and Tiger parts to Iran indicate that even that doesn't always work smoothly
Last edited by MSphere; 19th February 2012 at 23:15.
Rank 5 Registered User
Israel is susceptible to US pressure. Remember the Chinese projects it scrapped, e.g. the Harpy upgrade? If the USA decrees that Elbit must not upgrade FAV F-16s, then Elbit obeys.
AFAIK India's DARIN upgrades of Jaguars haven't been assisted by BAe, nor its upgrade of Sea Harriers with the EL/M-2032, or the proposed re-engining of the Jaguar fleet. And look at the upgrades & derivatives of the Mirage III/V out there!
Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
Justinian
Rank 5 Registered User
Rank 5 Registered User
Rank 5 Registered User
I'm personally against buying so many of the vintage Mi-17 design(that has reached the limit of its potential), that too with absolutely no TOT, offsets or local production despite the large order size. I wish the IAF had scrapped the Mi-17 deal when Mil raised its price and issued a medium helo tender instead. That way we may have ended up getting a large number of domestically produced NH-90s or EC-725s instead...
Rank 5 Registered User
Not encouraging news for KAI T-50. I believe after loosing Israel, KAI need this , since they with Lockheed team-up seems to be favorite.
Rank 5 Registered User
Worse for Hawk, IMO.
Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
Justinian
Rank 5 Registered User
Do any of the trainers on offer have the in flight refueling capability the USAF is looking for?
Rank 4 Registered User
They don't need this money they just "need" it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Key.Aero Network
Reply With Quote
Network -
Key Publishing Ltd Corporate
Key.Aero - The Homepage of Aviation