They will have to name the next carrier in line (after the GHWB) the JFK – you cannot possibly have carriers for Reagan and Bush, without one for JFK, one of the most admired US presidents!

The Gripen is, arguably, quite well suited to carrier use, something to do with the location of the undercarriage and the ruggedness of the airframe. It is unlikely to happen, in part because only the UK would buy it, and that is no sure thing, given the possibility of a Naval Typhoon. Basically, the UK is currently at the point where a JSF pullout would not be very painful, since the only thing which currently dictates JSF is the STOVL nature of the carriers, a decision which is looking less and less worthwhile.

This thread has, unfortunately, devolved into little more than trolling, which is a great pity. It is unfortunate that such a level of ultra-nationalistic nonsense has come out, especially how ill-informed it is. I suggest people go and get some coffee, and wake up to reality – the world is not going to shatter, whether the US releases codes or not, and whether or not nations continue to buy American equipment despite the level of hostility voiced by some of the posters here.

Hyperion: another well written post, but do not be put off by the fact that Turkish posters are sticking to their beliefs. There has been a lot of good discussion on this thread, with some very informative posts. The problem has been the attempt on the part of the Turkish posters to blame the unfortunate Greek pilot, who is a victim in all this.

It is clear that the Turkish planes should not have been there, whether or not you agree that it is Greek territory (military aircraft should never fly in civilian air traffic routes when it is not necessary, since it is incredibly dangerous), not because it is necessarily illegal, but because it is needlessly provocative. As long as the Turkish authorities insist on provocative exercises, simply because they are not technically illegal, then incidents like this will, tragically, continue to happen.

My remark about the Backfire was indeed a joke, though it certainly would increase the RAAF’s strike capability… :diablo:

The remark about the support capability was due to reports from the Czechs and Indians (getting messed around by Rosboronexport, with ‘new’ parts being shipped, and turning out to be old stock rebadged). In terms of running costs, it was partly a reference to Bangladesh, where they bought a batch of Mig-29s (very shady deal, but that is not entirely relevant) and found that they required a lot more maintenance than advertised. Also, from what I have heard, a lot of Peru’s Sukhois were grounded for a long while, along with most of their forces (budgetary reasons), so they probably would not complain about support. In the case of Ethriopia and Eritrea, they did not have many alternatives to buying Russian – they got a ‘full service’, with planes, pilots and ground crew all provided.

It is not a matter of not getting 100% of the technology, it is a matter of not getting the crucial pieces bits, which would allow what the UK calls ‘sovereign’ capability, i.e. adding weapons, updating ECM etc… The US wishes to restrict information, but it would mean the UK being hostage to the US being willing to integrate rival missiles. The US might not be so willing to integrate Storm Shadow, which competes with JASSM, or Meteor, which competes with AMRAAM, and ASRAAM or IRIS-T which compete with AIM-9X. Countries cannot afford to be held hostage to the willingness of US corporations to help their competitors. It is a matter of word, and whether the US is willing to stick to its word – unfortunately, the current administration does not place much emphasis on keeping promises (even if it disagrees with Clinton’s decision to grant a waiver, it must keep to the promise, if its word is to mean anything).

Sorry Erez, but I have to say, that camo paintjob is terrible! Try it in F-16I camo, and you have a deal.