So, in 1996 Saudi Arabia talked to LM about buying F-16 (note that the F-16E didn't exist then), & asked for pricing information. In January 1997 this was officially made public. That would have been block 50/52, as the F-16 block 60 didn't exist then. Metro suggested that Saudi Arabia is going to buy F-16 in the future, which is clearly wrong. The idea seems to have been dropped long ago.
@swerve
I apologize for taking so long to reply... i've been really busy!
My Bad!
Here's some reading/info RE: original post (same deal, with copy/paste; the site(s) is/are Password Protected... i.e. the link won't help anyone—MOD, please delete the part if it’s a problem with “posting rules,” though it’s cited).
Bush push for Saudi arms deal raises eyebrows at Pentagon, worries U.S. intelligence
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is seeking to conclude an agreement for a major U.S. weapons sale to Saudi Arabia despite strong objections from the military.
Officials said the administration has been negotiating with Saudi Arabia for up to $10 billion in weapons, including new advanced platforms such as the F-15 and F-16. The negotiations have been stuck over the Saudi refusal to accept any restrictions on the use of the U.S. weapons.
"The Saudis have insisted on obtaining the same conditions that they are getting from the Europeans," an official said. "And the Europeans are offering top weapons without any restrictions."
The officials said the U.S. negotiations concern a range of new systems never before introduced in the Arab world. The Saudis have demanded the latest models of each of the F-15, F-16 fighter-jets, advanced air-to-ground weapons and so-called unidentified black box technology for platform upgrades [Me: Note language of SA being part of “Arab World”].
"They want deep-strike capabilities that would give the Saudis capability to attack over the water," the officials said. "The U.S. Navy has grown suspicious over such a request, saying that if Saudi Arabia falls then our aircraft carriers could be attacked."
U.S. intelligence has warned against major arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council states. One intelligence assessment said the Saudi and other GCC regimes have become increasingly unstable [Me: Note SA being separated from GCCs in language above].
Several U.S. newspapers said Israel has objected to the U.S. weapons sale to Riyad. The Boston Globe and the New York Times said Israel has expressed concern that Saudi weapons would erode the qualitative edge of the Jewish state against its Arab neighbors.
"We are committed to Israel's security," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack. "We also are committed to our historical relationships, good, strong relationships with other states in the region, including Saudi Arabia."
But other officials said the main opposition to the arms sale comes from the Defense Department. Under the Saudi request, the Arab kingdom would acquire new capabilities of its own that could be exploited by rogue Islamic elements against the United States in the Gulf, Indian Ocean and the Red Sea.
In 2005, the Pentagon determined that Saudi Arabia had violated terms of the U.S. export of the F-15. Officials said the Royal Saudi Air Force flew F-15E fighter-jets in the northeastern kingdom near the border with Jordan and Saudi Arabia and housed the platforms in the air base in Tabuk.
"It's simply easier for circles in the White House and State to blame Israel rather than raise U.S. concerns against a completely unrestricted weapons sale to Saudi," another official said.
In 2006, Saudi Arabia signed an agreement to purchase up to 72 Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft reportedly for $10 billion. Another Saudi deal was for the upgrade of 80 British-origin Tornado fighter-jets, which would involve the transfer of advanced U.S. technology.
McCormack said the administration was discussing arms sales with Saudi Arabia and other unidentified GCC states. McCormack said the GCC states require the new weapons to face challenges in the Gulf.
"We are working with Saudi Arabia, states in the Gulf, on their particular defensive needs given the strategic challenges in the Gulf," McCormack said. "This is also a subject of discussion with the Congress. I would describe it as an ongoing discussion. There are no final decisions yet."
In 2006, the administration approved about $10 billion in Saudi arms requests from the United States. The requests included main battle tanks, combat vehicles, upgrades and aircraft systems.
McCormack said the United States has moved to supply the PAC-3 missile defense system to Saudi Arabia. The administration has been processing several new defense requests from Riyad in discussions with Congress.
"We've already taken some steps in terms of providing Patriot PAC-3 missile systems to help address what the states in that region perceive as a very real threat," McCormack said. "There are other stages to the various requests that have come in. We're considering those at the moment."
Geostrategy-Direct,
www.geostrategy-direct.com, April 18, 2007
-Some conext:
First, remember this is the ME (obviously those posting here are interested in the region and know politics/defense are as closely connected a religion/state). So when you read/hear/"officials," each word is usually chosen very carefully.
I’m not telling you anything you don’t know.
-While we (US) have been "discussing" this multi-billion $ deal for SA, SA signed a "security accord w/Iran," (in late April) though SA says its defense co-op with Iran hasn't changed. IMHO, the Saudis have huge problems within their Kingdom, starting with the Royals. There's a big fight for Succession/Ideology among 70-80/old's in the Saud's House [some might say they should go make a long visit to the Cleveland clinic's cardiology wing (again), to be reminded by their Doc's that age/fighting/stress isn't good for the heart.]
-BTW: the Iris-T AAM is being converted to the Iris-T SL, for SA and the other GCCs for “Missile Defense” [Another FU to US... although I wouldn't want to be tied into relying only on the PAC-3 either. SA claims the PAC-3 is too expensive... is oil back at $20/Bar?) We’ve tried to tell the Saudis several times that they need “x” number of Billion Dollar AEGIS battleships and cruisers… which they have said they can’t afford either]
-Here’s some info on what has gone into Saudi Purchasing (If interested, click on the links within the text to see the reasons the Saudi’s “may be” buying certain products).
My favorite title is: “Saudis Say, ’Pimp My Ride.”
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mt/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=2&search="saudi+shopping+spree"
-[In May 1988, the United Arab Emirates announced it had selected the advanced version of the F-16, culminating an intense competition. The program would involve major development, testing and purchase of 80 Block 60 aircraft. A commercial contract was signed in March 2000, and go-ahead occurred in June 2000. The Block 60 "Desert Falcon" configuration will include an APG-80 agile beam radar, an internalized forward-looking infrared targeting system, a new cockpit, internal electronic countermeasures, enhanced-performance F110-GE-132 engine, and conformal fuel tanks. The aircraft will be delivered in 2004 through 2006]
-We’re living in a “Unipolar Moment” in history. Before the fall of the USSR (Bi-Polar), we were able to buy everything “Wholesale.” Today, we have to pay, “Retail.” The Russians have dumped good/cheap arms all over the ME/world. Our relations with the Saudis have been going down hill for a while. Despite our “special relationship,” they have their own interests (internal problems); they can sell oil to China, India, etc… They believe we’re leaving the area in some manor and are resolved to allowing Iran get a nuke. China, India, Russian clients, have a lot more say with Russia (vis-à-vis Iran), than we (US) do. Even buying from Europe, who buy’s Iranian and Russian oil, allows the Saudis and GCCs to have even more influence. And so on. There are so many ways to look at “the new world.” It could even be in our interest for Europe to compete and get good contracts from the ME. The “Unipolar Moment,” has been insured by the Clinton Administration (I don’t think I need to explain), and while China sits on the sidelines waiting to see what happens, an “Anglo-Europe” becoming strong, is more likely to benefit us. I’m not sure a strong alliance with Russia (or living that way of life “Putin”) will interest them. A strong European-American (Japanese, AUS, Korea) Alliance will put a lot of pressure on the Chinese and India to come under the EU-US Sphere, as China and India, not only needs customers with money, but China already uses a ton of German, Swedish, Polish, Technology and materials etc…
-Having said that, the countries in the ME are all paranoid, making them great customers for all Defense Industries. If the US decides that we should spend the Money that’s going into the Iraq/ME war ($700B, or whatever) on a “Manhattan Project” to make oil useless, all of a sudden the US has the technology to sell/license the technology to make everyone (people) dependent on crazy oil prices, to fuel everything, irrelevant, that would create a incredibly profitable, true, new market.
-I say all this because in terms our military strategy for the future, we don’t know where we’re going; the concept of building increasingly conventional high precision, long range offense and increasingly “impenetrable armor”… makes absolutely no sense as neither defeats the other.
Sorry, I could go on and on about this, but unless someone wants to discuss it, I don’t want to go too OT.
-Final thing is that, IMO, if we really want to make money on military sales, we should use existing technology that’s already been sold to the ME and others (like the F-16),
and finish/use the "F-16XL demonstrator/dual role fighter" --not today's F-16E-- (upgrade it a little with some “stealth”). Since the airframes exist everywhere, upgrade them to the F-16XL (from what I understand, composites can easily be swapped… which would be a lot cheaper for countries than buying all new equipment, service, missiles from several manufacturers… Single engine, supercruise, thrust vectoring, new avionics, and an aircraft that can be fitted with American/Euro weapons, for a lot less money than an all new expensive Aircraft that may not have a lifespan that’s any longer than anything else?!?
The F16-XL looks like a few planes being sold/used around the world, huh? IMO it's too bad we didn't keep up the F-16/Lavi project. Looking at the years both we were working on the F16-XL and Israel the Lavi (yes, I know about the funding), they look very similar. I think it's obvious what Israel was trying to produce, a finished F-16XL. All of a sudden we stopped the project on our side, and the Israelis took it further but had to cancel the project. If we had kept up the joint project, instead of our AF/Polticians deciding on making sure it stopped, we would have had a much better aircraft years ago. 30yrs later, the Lavi copy with a russian thrust vectoring engine is in china (Pakistan too). The Delta Wing Rafale, with a different engine configurition is france's top fighter. The Eurofighter is also very similar. They all have 30 years of modification on the F-16XL/Lavi. (The XL pics are at the bottom of the page):
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-16-pics.htm
The story of the F-16XL is here (read the 3rd to last paragraph... just think if we hadn't droped the thing and, today, 25 yrs later/development; that would an "inexpensive" aircraft for us to use or sell to anyone who has an F-16 already... offsetting the crazy cost of our F-22. :nutkick
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-16ef-xl.htm
Peace
