Oh and further to that whilst the US wouldn’t block the integration with the Rafale of AMRAAM they could certainly bog it down with paperwork about technology release. Also I doubt Dassault will be that keen over Raytheon getting a close look at how the Rafales avionics work.

Integrating Sidewinder would be simple but AMRAAM requires source code access on both sides, certainly Congress would bog things down in respect of AMRAAMS source code.

Frankly it would be such a difficult process that Dassault will be keen on going for a French weapons package.

On the other hand, with the relaxed position between France and USA, perhaps the use of AMRAAM would be allowed by the american administration.

The problem isn’t so much over the use of AMRAAM as the Swiss are already a customer for the missile it’s rather the integration with the Rafale.

Technically its not an insurmountable problem but it would be costly and time consuming. The Swiss would have to pay for the integration process or accept MICA into the inventory. MICA is rather more expensive then AMRAAM and isn’t compatible with the Hornet they already field, again it could be integrated at a cost. The same goes for the Sidewinder fielded by the Hornet and F5…

On the other hand AMRAAM is integrated with Typhoon and Gripen and there is a wider field of ordanance available for both types if the Swiss feel like going shopping in a few years time.

Looking at the contest they want a replacement for the F5, the Gripen is certainly the right size and even better shares a similar engine to their Hornet fleet. I agree with Arthuro that the Typhoon has a good chance due to due to other local airforces operating the type allowing shared logistics but I would still place it second to Gripen…on the other hand the Austrian contest surprised us all so you never know.

Every country has an obligation to ensure their territory, waters and airspace is not used for actions against other countries. If not they don’t have the full rights as a sovereign country according to international law.

Afghanistan is the most prominent example as the attack on WTC was not launched by the Afghan government but by an organisation using their country for bases. As the government did not do anything about it and not allowed the UN to send troops a UN resolution was issued that allowed an invasion. Wether the government was just weak or actively supported the actions was not an issue.

If a country neglected to defend its airspace in such a way that it could be used for military attacks or criminal acts against a neighbour its sovereignty could be questioned. The attacked neighbour could then itself use that airspace to defend itself. An example was during the war on the Balkans when the Austrian air force was very busy fending off serbian planes that had strayed into their airspace. They were not a part of the conflict, but wanted to prevent NATO and Serbia to fight each other in their airspace, because NATO would not have accepted austrian airspace as some kind of free haven.

Yes but I will say again there is no requirement for any country to have an airforce and for that matter a millitary of any kind.

The requirement to ensure your territory is not used for aggresive actions against other nations is by its nature vague. In many cases all a country needs is a domestic police force.

Your right in the case of Austria it is in there interest to maintain a millitary component including fighters but that is not going to be the case for all nations and the UN can do nothing about that.

Every sovereign country has the obligation to defend its airspace, if they want to be truly sovereign and have the rights according to that. The difference with NATO is that the members do not only have that obligation for themselfs, but for all NATO.

That is true theoretically but it is not a requirement from the UN, also there are a fair few countries out there who have no requirement to patrol their airspace at all often for geographic or financial reasons.

Is that Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. I understand NATO takes care of the air defense for these nations on a 3 or 6 month rotation – is this correct? And so far Polish, Dutch and Norwegian F-16s, RAF F3s and German F-4Fs, have been based there so far over the past 10 years – is this correct?

Are there any publicly known incidents of NATO violations of Russian air space over the last ten years?

If NATO ever expands to include Ukraine, they will be responsible for defending thier own airspace surely? So we could see a situation where a Ukraine Su-27 intercepts a Russian Tu-95, and then the next day a Russian Su-27 could intercept a Ukraine Tu-95 (if they still use them). Crazy situation.

Yes thats it, Romanian Lancer’s have done it as well.

It is very simple. The UN do demand, that every country is responsible to secure the own air-space (= air-policing). To fly in the European airspace a flight-plan has to be filled in advance. At a given size air-corridors have to be used to avoid “near-misses” and aircraft transponders to work for the same purpose. Austria, Sweden a.s.o. did intercept NATO and other aircraft too every year. When paper work was not done, delayed, transponder did not operate or pilots are “asleep”, when missing the communication demands.
Flying over a foreign airspace is not for free. Their to pay a fee for the ATC always. Russia does earn a lot of money from that, when the shortest way to Asia is over Sibiria f.e..
Cutting some corridors can save expensive fuel sometimes and so such incidents “do happen” frequently.
You can set a “speed-limit” on a “highway” for several reasons, when you do not control that none will care about that after some time. :diablo:

No SENS NATO membership requires you to secure your own airspace nothing to do with the UN.

This has caused some issues with new NATO members in Eastern Europe who have no fighters. Hence NATO airforces rotating into the area to do it for them.

It always confuses me , they keep go on about how demanding the work load is for the modern aviator ,and how good a second pair of eyes are so why not have a RIO?
And on the same subject as the Typhoon is to replace the Tornado F3 wots going to happen to all the back eaters from them????

The RAF has had plenty of time to think about the F3 back seaters. Firstly there has been a draw down in the force anyway so the number of personel trained for the role would of been reduced. Some RIO in the RAF will either retire as per their service contract or retrain for other roles, those staying in the role will transfer to the GR4 force where back seaters are still needed (GR4 is probably going to stay in service beyond 2020 anyway). Further from that if the RAF does get Tranche 3 I have a hunch the RAF will get a fair few as two seaters, the RAF was never entirely happy about loosing FOAS so some twin seat Swing Role Eurofighter would certainly be on the cards.

With all that a current F3 RIO has plenty of options if they want to stay in the service.