@wilhelm: India’s IDS was exactly what I was thinking as well.
Come ~2020, Brazil and India may even be mutually interested in a larger, CVF/PA2 class carrier.

I do see UAVs for AEW/surveillance being the likely path for Brazil in medium-term future, which will definitely leverage the advantages of a manned fighter like Rafale. Reaper-class armed platforms will even take the load off fighters, but against air-defense systems and fast-jet opponents, UAVs will at the very least require manned escorts for the forseeable future.

I don’t get the impression Brazil would acquire a used platform (i.e. F-18C/D)
In any case, who is retiring any Hornets besides USN/MC?

(btw: one must mention when F-35 is brought up, not only “if the US will permit it to be sold”, but if that prospective user would even consider F-35’s completely non-autonomous approach to servicing and maintenance)

Albanian Mafia? North Korea? Honduran Coup?

The catch with MICA is its a rather pricey system and a French solution.

CAMM will be easier to integrate with Typhoon and is a British project, it should also offer a choice of seeker radar/IR. The Radar seeker option will also make it a rather attractive budget alternative to METEOR and AMRAAM.

The RAF will also find CAMM attractive as the RN and ARMY will stump a proportion of the development costs for the naval and land. Well I say the naval and land versions as they will retain the rail lugs from the aircaft version.

…I’m not 100% sure on this, but wasn’t CAMM included within the ‘enhanced missile cooperation frame-work’ WITH France? (I had been under the impression that CAMM would be more analagous to a MICA Mk.2, with France on-board. Or not?)

tredging on with the not-invented-here provincialism makes zero sense while claiming to want to maximize procurement efficiency. that’s it’s the same company (MBDA) just makes it more absurd. if MoD does end up treating CAMM as a purely UK project, it looks like France will at least feel FLATTERED by the gesture.

Moderators? This **** is clearly not productive, on-topic, or aligned with the forum guidelines…

If UAE pays for GMTI integration, this is only software “on top” of the AESA, correct? It seems most useful in Afghan sort of missions that look to continue for AdA, so what would impede integrating it immediately on all Rafales, or at least AESA-equipped models?

I thought CFT’s were included in UAE’s shopping list…???

Good job though on the list though, all in one place and with bright colors like that is so useful 🙂

Each Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish that it is a criminal offence under its law for any person intentionally to offer, promise or give any undue pecuniary or other advantage, whether directly or through intermediaries, to a foreign public official, for that official or for a third party, in order that the official act or refrain from acting in relation to the performance of official duties, in order to obtain or retain business or other improper advantage in the conduct of international business.

This Convention deals with what, in the law of some countries, is called “active corruption” or “active bribery”, meaning the offence committed by the person who promises or gives the bribe, as contrasted with “passive bribery”, the offence committed by the official who receives the bribe. The Convention does not utilise the term “active bribery” simply to avoid it being misread by the nontechnical reader as implying that the briber has taken the initiative and the recipient is a passive victim. In fact, in a number of situations, the recipient will have induced or pressured the briber and will have been, in that sense, the more active.

It is an offence within the meaning of paragraph 1 to bribe to obtain or retain business or other improper advantage whether or not the company concerned was the best qualified bidder or was otherwise a company which could properly have been awarded the business.

It is also an offence irrespective of, inter alia, the value of the advantage, its results, perceptions of local custom, the tolerance of such payments by local authorities, or the alleged necessity of the payment in order to obtain or retain business or other improper advantage.

It is not an offence, however, if the advantage was permitted or required by the written law or regulation of the foreign public official’s country, including case law .

Small “facilitation” payments do not constitute payments made “to obtain or retain business or other improper advantage” within the meaning of paragraph 1 and, accordingly, are also not an offence. Such payments, which, in some countries, are made to induce public officials to perform their functions, such as issuing licenses or permits, are generally illegal in the foreign country concerned. Other countries can and should address this corrosive phenomenon by such means as support for programmes of good governance. However, criminalisation by other countries does not seem a practical or effective complementary action.

The sections in red are of course nearly contradictory and hinge upon the definition of “small” (“Facilitation payments” are practically the definition of a bribe). So it’s a matter of whether the al-Yamamah deal involved a “small” sum (“licences and permits” seem to be the standard by which “small” is conceived of – skimming a cut off a nigh-100-billion Pound contract seems out of that realm…) IF not a “small” sum, it would still be allowed according the OECD standards if by statutory or case law (not “local customs” or tolerance by authorities), such payments were legal… But given the Saudis’ intent to keep the matter hushed up, I seriously doubt that to be the case 🙂

All of this is left to each member country to actually implement (and I’m not going to quote the entire relevant UK and US case law on the subject), but one is certainly able to judge for one’s self whether the Convention ideals are being attended to or not. (and the relevant parties’ present ethics by their statements on the topic)

To the thread topic though, this matter mainly relates to the British GOVERNMENT as the legal party to the deal , and to their faithfulness in following thru on the Convention. BAE only played a part by following orders according to (secret) contract in concealing money flows, and (to my knowledge) was not alleged to have been privy to any negotiations the Government was not party to. The British Government is of course sovereignly immune (if it wishes so) since it is the only party able to effect sanctions against corruption violations: I believe there are supposed to be certain (limited) repurcussion for signatories failure to adhere to the Convention, but it’s mostly an abstract standard by which to encourage ethical practice.

Could you guys make a separate “Serbian Air Defense vs. NATO” thread if you want to continue this?
I’m not complaining about the subject matter, it’s interesting, but does it really belong in “Gripen NG beats Su-35 in A2A”?

Right, but UK+France combined fielded quite the large proportion of total “European” (presumably ignoring Warsaw pact for this purpose) combat aircraft in the entire post-WWII period, I’d think you’d agree…?

Anyhow, it’s rather off-topic…