Israel to implement the two state solution, give back annexed lands from wars, in return the Arabs recongonizing Israel.

Am sure a majority vote UN will decide on that line.

Quite right. Israel has a long record ignoring UN resolutions, why should Iran bother ? The problem here is again the US who’s applying two standards. They clearly demonstrated that they were ready to disregard the UN themselves when launching the Iraq war in 2003.

Concerning Vanunu, while his statement could not be independently verified, I would not completely dismiss them either. Most nuclear powers have had a few officers or politicians willing to use the bomb for whatever reason they saw fit at the time. After Japan Mc Arthur is said to have wanted to use the bomb on China, a few French officers wanted to use the bomb on Algeria, they also tried to get the bomb during the attempted coup… I’m sure Russia, China had their moments. I would not be surprised if Vanunu felt compelled to reveal the existence of the Israeli bomb by fear that it would fell into wrong hands. In any case we cannot judge his credibility on these statements since none of us here were there at the time. He might be right and he might be wrong.

Maybe already asked but is there a two seater variant for training ?

According to “Multirole” almost every powers of today should change their flags. After all UK and France used to be colonialist powers who did many crimes against humanity, they also used to practice slavery under the same flags. Then maybe the Japanese and German should also change their language since after all it was the same language used during the fascist era. Their neighbour are probably still traumatised just by hearing them. Maybe USA should also changed its flag after using two atomic weapons against Japan after all under today’s standard the use of weapons of mass destruction against a non nuclear power is a crime against humanity…
Now just to complete the picture maybe we should all change our skin colour to blue… After all just look at that picture, next to the flag of the rising sun you see these very familiar people… don’t they look just like Japanese of nowadays ?:o:rolleyes:

The real problem isn’t for Israel to have nuke and then trying its best to stop Iran from doing the same, after all they’re only playing the game right, the real problem is for the US, Europe and their friend to turn a blind eye on Israel but at the same time be willing to go to war with Iran for doing the exact same. Like turning a blind eye on Bahrain and SA, but going to war or interfering in Libya and Syria.

The problem is also for the West to describe Iran as a rogue nation whose sole objective is to nuke the World starting with Israel. If they were so angry at the world then you would see Iranian terrorists everywhere. Why wait for the Bomb when other solution are way more effective and far less costly both in term of money and retaliation ?

It’s a pertinent problematic since Israel is going to use its US supplied aircraft only if they know that in the end the US will come to the rescue.

Are you talking about Morocco ? This is only one deal.

Where did Dassault/France mess up ?
-Korea ? No ;
-Singapore ? No, or not as much as Eurofighter : Mr Lake is the first to claim that BAe made a “shambolic performance” there and were punished by Singapore for this by an early eviction ;
-Morocco : yes, complete Franco-French disaster ;
-Switzerland ? With Rafale ending first of the technical evaluation and gouvt finally choosing the cheapest option ?

Of course, DA still have to learn some lessons, and I’m sure they do. But at least, our aircraft is competitive (note that I’m not claiming superiority, I just mean that up to now, technically, it’s “enough”, and with global offers apparently better than Eurofighter’s).

On the other hand, even worst pro-Eurofighter fanboys claim that BAe totally messed up in Singapore, and that EADS totally messed up in India…

+1, add to that the Morocco deal was more than DA and French govt singing two different tunes, there were issues with loan for the planes as well IIRC, and the US can print money at will so… But very funny to hear about “all” the deals the French lost.

Also I take note that it seems some are always trying to put it in a French VS British argument. It should not be. If logical counter argument is what some perceive as “aggressive” behaviour, but name calling and flaming is “appropriate” behaviour, then I’m happy I’ve lived long enough in this country to know that such attitude isn’t the general rules, well at least where I live and the people I know.

Anyway this is about aircraft, and unless some here are working directly for BAE or Dassault they aren’t “your” aircraft…

Since either would require new aircraft to be built just for the “lease”, expect to pay full price for those aircraft, with no guarantee that the MN or USN would buy them back… which would mean that the RN will be stuck with them instead of F-35C for several decades.

Not necessarily. The MN commanded about 60 Rafale M because they expected to operate at term at least 2 aircraft carrier.With the plan for the second aircraft carrier falling through, they may be more than willing to “lease” a few to the RN.
The only reason why this will almost never happen is political not technical or cost.
Interim solutions have a way of becoming permanent, and the UK cannot pull out of the F-35 program, that would make the plane more expansive for the other nations that may follow the lead of Australia and RN into looking at alternative etc. The US won’t allow it. So it’s more likely the RN will get between 3 or 6 early production model F-35C/B in 2020 and will have to wait until later for anything else.

You contradict your claim to stay polite. When something is effective there is an export market for that. When something does not justify the outlays there is none as you claimed. 😉
Just were the related infra-structure is at hand it makes some sense to use already paid ones or cheap second hand examples till end of the economical life-time. At least the Chinese missed no opportunity to close capability gaps by something new if that shows up. 😎

No I don’t. A-10, Spectre etc. are very effective platform for the missions they were designed to perform but are too expansive and not multi-role enough for small-medium countries to afford. For those countries strengthening fighters for the AtG role + attack helicopters is simply more cost effective. They usually have to protect a far smaller number of ground troops and they fight much closer to home than the US does. The first thing the export markets is looking for is air superiority fighter with a second role in AtG.

While we cannot predict the future based on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Libya did showed that relatively cheap and slow aircraft are still necessary. And right now while drone can remain on station for a longer time, they are too dependant on good weather, with capabilities decreasing very fast when weaponry are attached to them.

Russia is also moving away from the Su-25. Btw, any big-gun CAS in production? Thought not 😉

That’s mostly because of the lack of export market for such platform, not because they are ineffective.
The USAF also stated that they were moving away from aircraft like A-10 because of budget constraint and the “greater need” for multi-role platform like F-35. But of course given the mess they are in I expect them to say almost everything to save the F-35 program for reason only they know about.

It’s too soon to talk about Russia in definite terms since they’re only now starting designing new jets. So I think we need to wait for 2020 onward to know exactly what format they’ll get.

I think there is a confusion between CAS and strike or penetration strike. Almost any current country able to denied the airspace to the US is also a nuclear power. So I guess the USAF would have other things to worry about than a few Man-pads. The greatest point against an A-10 replacement is that maybe UAS can provide a better solution if fitted with appropriate weapons. Given to time on station provided by those system, the army or the marines could find to trading the gun acceptable. You also have new development like guided mortar etc that could help replace the A-10…