Tell us where you’re from so we can make cheap shot and bigoted generalizations…

If you look in the upper right corner of this post, you might get a clue.

As for this thread, please lock it as no new info of Israeil attacks have surfaced in the last few hundred posts.

Not to mention that even the moderators are starting to loose it.:eek: 😮 😮

Hope it makes them happy!
For that money you’d get one hell of a yacht.

Btw, Cunard’s QM2 costed about as much as those two glitzy A380. Coming at a 150.000 tonnes against 550t for one A380CJ.

They probably have one hell of a yacht allready 😮

TONKA

That is the business of the Iraqi themselves and not the achivement of the USA.

If you are persistent, you can continue to lie to yourself until the day you die.

🙂

Pegon…
While the Su-34 might be a good fill-in technically, there is a lot more than political leanings working against it. While the per-aircraft cost is less, every part in it would be totally new to the Aussie supply chain, as is the operation/maintenance/repair procedures and support equipment.

The cost of establishing a support infrastructure from the ground up with completely “foreign” parts, etc. for only 24 aircraft would raise the price well above the total cost involved with the F/A-18F deal.

Add in the similarity of the RAAF’s F/A-18C/D and the -F types (yes, only ~35% is interchangeable, but all of the systems etc. work the same way, with the same operation/maintenance/repair procedures, and most of the same support equipment), and the fact that Boeing already has a support infrastructure in place to complement the RAAF’s (the RAAF would have to pay for Sukhoi to do the same, either seperately or as part of the “package”), and the cost factor is well in the favor of the UberBug.

Bug Lover…
This is about the RAAF wanting 24 F/A-18Fs to “temporarily replace” their F-111s, not any plans of the USN. Different history, different plans, different requirements.

See the first post on this thread:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=65916

More than a buying advice, it is my observations that the later US aircraft designs have lost some of the “fitted to the purpose at hand” idea in the later years.

The Su-34 has: range, payload and toilet:) advantage over the SH.

What Phantom and others here fail to realize, is that this is an INTERNATIONAL forum, and in this contexst hes reply was bouth rude and offensive.
If you dont like opinions in less than perfect english, you can easily find an all english/american forum.

Slightly related… since it’s the same number and jet… SAAB today presented their offsets to Norway. 48 jets for 3.12 Billion USD (20M NOK) and 100% in industrial and technological offsets.

(The Gripen 39N with more thrust, more fuel, and more stores than 39C.)

Interesting news !

I wonder how Stortinget is going to explain the purchase of JSF, after this.

But they will. 😡

Added : Gripen is not the Swedish word for Gryphon, after all. Just made a search in Aftonbladet. The search came up with people apprehended by the police.

So there you have it: “JAS 39 N ARRESTED”

The whole idea of NATO, is that other member states will come to your aid, if you need it. For that, menber states must have forces to send, or no ? :rolleyes: