Rafale, Eurofighters advertised to Libya

[T-95]

hey im new here but i've been reading the forums for a long time now. i read somewhere that several convoys from european states went to Libya to offer new fighter jets to them like the Eurofighter and the French Rafael. Is this true? and have any of the deals come through? and if so why would they give Libya such advanced weaponry even though its been known to be very anti-west? also wouldnt it be better if they just opted for and Su-30 variant?

 

[contedicavour]

hey im new here but i've been reading the forums for a long time now. i read somewhere that several convoys from european states went to Libya to offer new fighter jets to them like the Eurofighter and the French Rafael. Is this true? and have any of the deals come through? and if so why would they give Libya such advanced weaponry even though its been known to be very anti-west? also wouldnt it be better if they just opted for and Su-30 variant?

Well, that's what we are discussing in the Libya thread here.
The British clearly made an offer for Typhoon and Dassault is very aggressive in pushing Rafale.
Both planes are however more expensive than SU30s/MIG29SMTs and the potential plane deal with Russia is part of a wider deal concerning Soviet era debts, technology and natural resources.
Libya isn't anymore considered an enemy since Gheddafi gave up his WMD programme. He fears terrorist outfits as much as we do. Besides, without European maintenance his Typhoons or Rafales wouldn't last long in active service (in case of unfavourable regime change).
Anyway I'm still betting on MIG29SMT and SU30s. Later on a smaller batch of Rafale may arrive to replace the remaining Mirage F1s.

cheers

 

[T-95]

No offense to any of the French people on this forum but paying over $55 million for a plane that would be somewhat better than a F-16 Block 50 in air-air capability only seems like fraud to me. Why do you think they can't get anybody to buy that plane? The F-35 and Rafael are in the same price range and i actually think that the F-35 might be even cheaper. Rafael is going to be a major loser in the export market.
As for the Eurofighter ,well the Saudis seem to like it and its a good plane for the European countries as they won't be getting neither the F-22 or the PAK FA. It would certainly be a good choice for Libya.

 

[contedicavour]

We also need to keep in mind 2 other factors : (i) timings : F35 isn't coming until 2014 (ii) politics : buying a plane that relies for maintenance and equipment on the US isn't a good idea for most Middle Eastern governments who may be at odds with America.
So it comes down to Rafale vs Typhoon. Rafale is a bit cheaper, lighter and a bit more air-to-ground focused (the French Air Force will use them at first mostly to replace Jaguars and F1s in air to ground role). Typhoon is for the moment better at air to air even if later batches are acquiring air to ground capability. Also, the French have a reputation of resisting American sanctions and providing weaponry to some anti-Western Middle Eastern regimes, which should help them.
Last but not least, let's not forget what is in our (Europeans) interest... as an Italian I'd sure like to sell more Typhoons but I wouldn't be happy at having Typhoons facing our own Typhoons in the Mediterranean in case of conflict with Libya.

cheers

 

[Rich]

(i) timings : F35 isn't coming until 2014 (ii) politics : buying a plane that relies for maintenance and equipment on the US isn't a good idea for most Middle Eastern governments who may be at odds with America.

1, Ahem, actually "most" buy American kit with boths hands when they can. If you'd like I'll go country by country. Weve sold thousands of aircraft in the region, by far the biggest warplane maker for the Middle East.

2, The only ones it wouldnt be a "good idea" for are the ones who support and export terrorism. But we wouldnt sell to them in the first place would we? So it wouldnt be a "good idea" "for them" because the airplanes we sent to them just might have bombs launching from them.

Also, the French have a reputation of resisting American sanctions and providing weaponry to some anti-Western Middle Eastern regimes, which should help them.

3, Really? What "sanctions" have the French resisted? I assume by "resist" you mean UN sanctions right? Since we dont have the right to sanction French exports. Any sanctions the French have honored are the very same ones they agreed to in the first place.

Contedicavour, my friend, I really expect better posts from you.

 

[qwerty223]

Contedicavour, my friend, I really expect better posts from you.

Actually, Contedicavour was referring to Iraq, Iran, Pakistan(abit far though) and even Israel(which has problem to make decisions, well you should know what i mean).

These country had US made toys, paid for them, use it to defeat US enemy(s), later became US enemy(s) and some (not to name here), latter, begging for maintenance or new toys.

UN sanctions was propose by US, EURO keep them, but US changes policy "accordingly", thats what freaks French up. :nutkick

BTW, French has a complete structure in military industry. Europeans are forming union to penetrate US market too.

 

[Super Nimrod]

Tony Blair is in Libya today, apparently to thank the Colonel for coming in from the cold re the nuclear issue.

 

[Alpha Epsilon]

I thought the Russians had got the Lybian deal? Anyway Blair probably is trying to get some kind of defence deal. Some newspaper or something like that reported some time ago that UK-Lybian meetings in the defence industry sector had increased a lot in the last few years.

 

[BKNO]

T-95 would be somewhat better than a F-16 Block 50 in air-air capability only seems like fraud to me.

Looks like you have NO idea whatsoever of what Rafale capabilities in A2A like A2G are.

During Tuger Meets and other NATO exercises they are head and shoulder above everything NATO can throw at them.

T-95 The F-35 and Rafael are in the same price range and i actually think that the F-35 might be even cheaper.

A Rafale F2 already have better performances, more A2A capabilties, carries MORE payload further than F-35 etc.

T-95 Rafael is going to be a major loser in the export market.

I'm sure you're a great analyst; but perhaps you should be starting by spelling Rafale correctly.

T-95 As for the Eurofighter ,well the Saudis seem to like it and its a good plane for the European countries as they won't be getting neither the F-22 or the PAK FA. It would certainly be a good choice for Libya.

What would be a good choice for everyone writing about Rafale would be to get their facts straight and right. Please.

 

[swerve]

... Weve sold thousands of aircraft in the region, by far the biggest warplane maker for the Middle East.....

True nowadays (the USSR used to be no. 1), but a very large proportion weren't exactly bought at market prices.

Only Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Oman, Qatar & Bahrain pay full price for US aircraft, & Iran did in the 1970s. Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco & Tunisia have got 'em free or massively subsidised.

All the Gulf Arabs carefully tune their arms purchases to politics. The sudden rush to buy new US weapons in the 90s, for example, was directly related to US aid in the second Gulf War.

That doesn't mean US aircraft weren't the best in terms of effectiveness, or cost effectiveness, but it does mean that the fact they were bought does not prove the buyers thought them the best on technical or cost grounds.

 

[Alpha Epsilon]

Well UK-Lybian relations seem to be picking up. BP is set to reenter the Lybian market. Other business contracts are under discussion, I'd imagine some military ones too.

 

[Rich]

Actually, Contedicavour was referring to Iraq, Iran, Pakistan(abit far though) and even Israel(which has problem to make decisions, well you should know what i mean).

These country had US made toys, paid for them, use it to defeat US enemy(s), later became US enemy(s) and some (not to name here), latter, begging for maintenance or new toys.

UN sanctions was propose by US, EURO keep them, but US changes policy "accordingly", thats what freaks French up. :nutkick

BTW, French has a complete structure in military industry. Europeans are forming union to penetrate US market too.

I have no idea what you mean. And I read your post five times.

 

[Alpha Epsilon]

Well, the UK and Lybia have done a defence deal - for missiles and air defence systems. The air defence system imo could be the Rapier system or the Starstreak missile.

 

[qwerty223]

I have no idea what you mean. And I read your post five times.

swerve had made clear what I gona say. Add some for myself, third world country only choose US stuff "with both hands" when they are ready to be US buddy, if not, they have to find their own way to help themselves.

I know its arrogant to say so, but you seems no sense of world politics at all?
nvm, Contedicavour will clear himself.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[contedicavour]

1, Ahem, actually "most" buy American kit with boths hands when they can. If you'd like I'll go country by country. Weve sold thousands of aircraft in the region, by far the biggest warplane maker for the Middle East.

2, The only ones it wouldnt be a "good idea" for are the ones who support and export terrorism. But we wouldnt sell to them in the first place would we? So it wouldnt be a "good idea" "for them" because the airplanes we sent to them just might have bombs launching from them.



3, Really? What "sanctions" have the French resisted? I assume by "resist" you mean UN sanctions right? Since we dont have the right to sanction French exports. Any sanctions the French have honored are the very same ones they agreed to in the first place.

Contedicavour, my friend, I really expect better posts from you.

As Qwerty and others wrote, situations evolve over time.
Sure, F16s are the most popular planes in the Middle East as we speak. However if you are running a delicate foreign policy balancing the interests of the US/West and those of your public opinion just to make sure you aren't killed in a coup d'état... would you prefer to depend on the US for your air force or on the French (who are less pushy in the area) ?
Think of Iran with its F14s, F4s and F5s who became almost overnight useless in 1979. Think of Egypt with all its MIGs who ended up useless after the Camp David Agreement.
Now instead think of Libya. It managed to get its Mirages III and F-1 maintained and upgraded in the '80s at the same time as the USN was bombing Tripoli... Think of Iraq. Its Mirages remained somehow operational right up to the start of Gulf War 1.
So your argument that the US will never sell to an enemy country doesn't stand, simply because situations evolve and the Pentagon or the NSA don't always guess which way things evolve...
Last point. I'm not suggesting France flouts official UN sanctions. I'm just saying that the US has a tendency (right or wrong doesn't matter here) to impose sanctions for a variety of matters (human rights, politics, trade) while France doesn't. If you are customer of a complex weapons system you are bound to think about this.

cheers

 

[Rich]

would you prefer to depend on the US for your air force or on the French (who are less pushy in the area) ?

I dont think the question even comes up. Maybe they spin some such tripe on their own people but dont think for a minute the people who actually matter have forgotten it was America that stopped Saddam by sending our armies 1/2 across the world. And that only America has the power to protect the moderate oil producing Arab nations.

Think of Iran with its F14s, F4s and F5s who became almost overnight useless in 1979. Think of Egypt with all its MIGs who ended up useless after the Camp David Agreement.

What about them? I just dont see the connection. And neither do the nations we are talking about because they are still buying US kit with both hands. When the F-35 is launched we aren't going to be able to build enough for those who want them. This thing your implying simply has no roots in reality. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1111-02.htm
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users.html

Last point. I'm not suggesting France flouts official UN sanctions. I'm just saying that the US has a tendency (right or wrong doesn't matter here) to impose sanctions for a variety of matters (human rights, politics, trade) while France doesn't. If you are customer of a complex weapons system you are bound to think about this.

If France was in the position of America, when those students over ran that embassy in Tehran, do you think the French would have continued selling the Iranians military equipment? Of course not!

And the only other such sanction was against Pakistan and India when we were required by Law to suspend sales because both countries tested nukes. So yes, your right, the French have no requirement. Nor did almost the entire world care much about nuclear escalation.

If you are customer of a complex weapons system you are bound to think about this.

If they are thinking about it they sure aren't thinking about it very much. The last 20 years have seen an explosion in US weapons sales where'as the French share of the market has grown increasingly smaller and is made up almost entirely of stuff we dont bother making, or refuse to export. Last time I checked US kit accounts for almost 60% of all world weapons purchases, totally dominating the Middle East.

And consider that in several of the largest markets we dont sell at all, or very little. The China market, the India market, east Europe, Africa.

So your argument that the US will never sell to an enemy country doesn't stand, simply because situations evolve and the Pentagon or the NSA don't always guess which way things evolve...

I never argued that. I only stated the reason why we dont sell weapons to some countries. That reason is because they are hostile to us

 

[BKNO]

Mod edit:

Leave out the derogatory and racist remarks in future posts.

It's a breach of the rules and you've been warned on it before.

Don't let it happen again.

AD.

 

[merocaine]

France lost its position in the Middle East after it proved itself "unreliable" to the Israelis by refusing to supply weapons during the 6 day war and after, they wanted the Israelis to pull out of the west bank et all first.
The Americans had no such compunctions, and pursued a policy which clearly favored the Israelis. France found itself squeezed by the 2 superpowers who began to dominate the region. Once the the Arabs fell out of love with Arab nationalism (and the USSR) it was natural for them to cultivate there new protectors by buying there weapons.
Indeed it is a main stay of Saudi foreign policy, they buy everyone's weapons, the most expensive and up to date, in an attempt to keep all there burly protectors sweet. It has little to do with defense.

America as Rich states only sells to countries that are not a threat, reasonably enough. There arms sales, like most countries arms sales, are a huge moral black spot. Although I'm pissing in the wind here I'm going to say it again, selling weapons to make a profit is unworthy of any country with considers itself a modern democracy, it is morally repugnant and economically unsound. And a fairly recent phenomena, I'm not opposed to all weapon sales by any means, selling to your true allies, not a problem. Its the selling of weapons to every mean and cruel little dictorship and banana republic that comes knocking that makes me sick. Britain, the USA, France, Germany, Italy, are all trying to out do each other in the moral confusion stakes.

It is a testimony to the arms industry that a forum devoted to the military and stratgy discusses real war only infrequently, it's main topic of discussion seems to be the cash register of arms sales.

The real wars wars that are been fought barely merit a mention, doesn't anyone else find this strange?

 

[Rich]

It is a testimony to the arms industry that a forum devoted to the military and stratgy discusses real war only infrequently, it's main topic of discussion seems to be the cash register of arms sales.

If your talking about this forum then maybe youv been opening the wrong posts all the time. We talk about "real war" all the time, and when we dont then were usually talking about systems. The selling of weapons isn't all that repeated a topic.

Most countries involved in arms production place no moral requirements on those who buy their arms. Just look at China and their relations with the monstrous regime in Sudan. Russia is another example, as are the French.

Its the selling of weapons to every mean and cruel little dictorship and banana republic that comes knocking that makes me sick. Britain, the USA, France, Germany, Italy, are all trying to out do each other in the moral confusion stakes.

Even tho you left out the worst offenders you are sadly right. The weapons sales to the developing world are a huge moral black spot. In the USA it was Bill Clinton who really propelled America into a huge arms merchant to the 3'rd world, a fact most Liberals here seem to have a hard time remembering. But by far it is Russia who leads in selling arms to the developing world, 2nd is France, and right behind them is America.