An Israeli defence correspondent should know that EL/M-2032 is not an AESA radar. The manufacturer’s brochures make no such claim, & clearly show it with a mechanically steered antenna. The EL/M-2052, however, is an AESA, & called such by the manufacturer.

Official Israeli reports do not say that the Colombian Kfirs have AESA radars. They say ‘The “Block 60” version for NATO countries will include connectivity, advanced radar of the AESA kind’. That’s what’s been offered to Bulgaria.

Aerie Egozi, after his mishap about the EL/M-2032, now claims that the Blk 60 Kfirs will use the EL/M-2052 AESA radar. Not an upgrade – rebirth

Whether this radar will be offered also to non NATO countries is questionable, as I wrote in another thread of this forum.

@ Glendora:
is it now sure that 10 FREMM class frigates will be built? The last statement I had read was only 6.

7th and 8th are contractiualized. Plans are to acquire all the 10 originally planned. From the article linked:

Apart from finding funding for its multipurpose ships, the Navy has also recently received funds to order its seventh and eighth FREMMs, part of a planned order of 10. The two vessels will be general purpose variants, an industrial source said, and the eighth will offer the Unimast, De Giorgi said.

These second line ships are heavily armed compared to the Soldati, Minerva, and Cassiopea classes.

Personally I agree with you. Even is the navy will remit more and more to the local coast guard the normal daily patrolling duties, the risk would be of having a too thick and expensive first line and no second line at all.

It seems that some fellow users of this forum lately made some confusion on the specifications of the Kfir Block 60.
I suggest to have a new and relaxed read to the page of the supplier about the Kfir blk 60: http://www.iaf.org.il/4399-41016-en/IAF.aspx

These aircraft are different from the previus block supplied to Colombia, which already are serving well anyway.
Wheter any eventual Argentine Kfir would be supplied of AESA is questionable, anyway these a/c are much more advanced then any F-1 on sale as of today.

I dont know how many C models are available, and i also fail to see any economic point in re-building C into NG,
so IMO the Swedish AF would be better off selling C models if there is interest, and get new built NG.
A modified/converted C would be heavier than it has to, or it would just use a few token items from a butchered C, like the ejection seat.

According to what wrote a senior member of this forum on page 28 of this very thread the number of C/D models (mostrly of them in service in Swedish air force) is 87 + 50 A/B models srtored. Of these 87, 60 will be converted to NG, according to this source: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saab-gets-e-model-contract-to-convert-swedish-gripens-394280/ and the agreement was already signed. So you’d better hurry to get in touch with the Swedish Minister of Defence pointing out that the modification is an error and they better acquire brandn new planes.

In case your efforts would not succeed to terminate the already signed agreement between Saab and the military of that Country, it seems that circa 17 C/D airframess (+ spare parts from 50 A/B stored) remain to fulfill any Slovak requirement to replace their actual line of 6 Mig-29.
A joint Czech/Slovak squadron could impy that the Czechs will renew the leasing contract for a slight less number of A/C. Anyway hopefully in the next future we will have more news to comment on.

Regards

Yes, I thought exactly the same thing when reading the few lines aboout the possible acquisition.
BTW we don’t know if Slovak AF will chose to buy the a/c or lease them as the Czech, did. Anyway the number will be very limited: they are going to take over just 12 Mig-29 (6 of them airworthy as of today, according to wiki).

Some more F-104s, with MK-82 Snake eye:

and with BLU-27 napalm bombs:

Sorry, but I think that your post is rather obscure. Are you referring to some actual operation? Could you please elaborate a bit?

Some points like:

3bis. Who are exactly the countries providing support? What resources?
Poland send one plane + 50operator
England sent one C17
But what are the details?

4. On a more dramatic note, does the lack of airlifting cap in CAR, with a potentially fast changing situation in theater and extra-theater, might turn to another Dien Bien Phu?

sound more comic then dramatic. Anymore reference before fellow users could comment on the thread you just started?

pricey stuff.

I looked into the “lifecycle cost” of the new generation of LIFT aircraft… and found this interesting tidbit from Israel.

http://defense-update.com/20130103_iaf_m346_life_cycle_cost.html

so they will cost $65M over 20 years… Not much lower than the more capable FA50 variant that the Iraqis just bought.

From what I read from your topic starting post in T50IQ – Iraq’s new trainer / light fighter you stated that

The flyaway price of the aircraft is $1.1Bn ($45M per airframe).

The training and support contract for 20 years is for $1Bn.

Your statement give us a provisional figure of 0.875 millions $ expense in 20 years for each of the 24 F-50 or T-50 bought by IRAQ. The deal for Polish Air Force is limited to 8 a/c + a simulator + techincal and logistic support + iniatial training, so it’s obvious that since IRAQ bought more a/c then Poland (no simulator included yet in the Iraqui deal, isn’t it?) they should get better figures for life cycle cost estimates. Instead Iraq is going to sustain more life cycle costs for thieir fleet of 24 F/T-50 while the life cycle cost estimate of 30 Israeli M-346 seems to me consistent in scale with the life cycle cost of 8 Polish M-346.

And as swerve stated, these a/c are LIFTs. Pretending they could take a (second line) attack role is a daydream attitude. Italian Air Force will use F-35s not M-346s to take over the AMX mission. Israel Air Force will use its M-346s only for advanced training purposes. This kind of LIFTs could work in combat role just for air forces like the Philippine Air Force, which has had no combat aircraft in line from years.
And this applies also to the supposed combat version of the T-50. Else the Koreans would have used the F-50 to take over their obsolete F-5 licht comba aircraft fleet, instead of considering and eventually selecting aircraft like the F-35 or F-15SE.

The M-346, T-50 and Yak-130 (and the BAE Hawk IMHO) are all good modern advanced trainers. But pretending that for a modern and efficient military air force they could take the role for the next 20 years also of light combat aircraft is frankly naive (no matter what marketing efforts KAI tries to exert on its export customers). Oh and being “supersonic” for a LIFT doesn’t adds much, but costs for afterburners and the related fuel. Me and other users tried to explain this simple concept to SlowMan, who just can’t get it and kept arguing on this very thread, until he was eventually perm banned.