We’d lend the French a couple of transport aircraft

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20999533

Moggy

A couple of our aircraft carriers might be more useful. 🙂

At this time the UEA is starting to try and find a buyer or buyers for there 60+ mirage 2000

It would certainly be very useful to Brazil to acquire a few since the country could maintain capability without the expense of introducing a new 4.5G type. UAE might also be prepared to part with some of its M2K’s before receiving its own new 4.5G/5G aircraft.

It is all about preserving the ACCESS to these high threat areas with as little a damage to your own air-force as possible. Surely F-35’s and F-22’s will be LOST going head to head against the best SAM networks, however the point is to do it (defeat the IADS) with a comfortable loss rate ( Its all about preserving the advantage the USAF , USN thinks it has now against its current threats , for the future ) ..

What would be a “comfortable” loss rate? Obviously 0% is comfortable. Is 1% still comfortable? 2% starts sounding uncomfortable to me.

Very crude calc here… If you lose 1% per mission, that costs $75-$150 million (depending on the aircraft lost) per 100 missions flown or $750,000-$1,500,000 per mission. It seems to me that 2% or higher losses per mission gets very expensive – for similar cost you could fire 2/3/4/5 Tomahawks at the target while remaining out of range of SAM defences.

Or a push to drop the F-35.

“OTTAWA — The Canadian military has decided it will rely on the U.S., other allies and private companies for air-to-air refuelling if the government purchases the F-35 because the stealth fighters aren’t compatible with Canada’s current refuelling aircraft.

The revelation is buried in an explosive report released last week and means the Canadian military would be reliant on third parties to realize the full benefits of its F-35s — a situation opposition critics and analysts say is completely unacceptable.”

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/141233/canadian-af-unable-to-refuel-f_35-in-flight.html

The report covers the cost of procuring and operating F-35. If it’s a cost associated with F-35, it should feature in the report. I don’t see anything conspiratorial here. On the contrary omitting this cost would undermine the value of the report.

Congratulation for Eurofighter.

So I think the confirmatory deal for Typhoon now should be:

1. RAF: 3 IPA, 50 Tranche I, 67 Tranche II, 40 Tranche IIIA.

2. GAF: 2 IPA, 32 Tranche I, 78 Tranche II, 31 Tranche IIIA.

3. ItAF: 1 IPA, 27 Tranche I, 47 Tranche II, 21 Tranche IIIA.

4. SpAF: 1 IPA, 18 Tranche I, 34 Tranche II, 20 Tranche IIIA.

5. Austrian AF: 15 Tranche I.

6. RSAF: 24 Tranche II, 48 Tranche III.

7. Oman AF: 12 Tranche III.

In total: 7 IPA and 564 productional fighters (including 142 Tranche I, 250 Tranche II, and 172 Tranche III).

Please correct me if my data has something wrong, thank you.

Thanks for that. Who knows if the list might require some additions in the future? A la:

8. Kuwait AF: 20 Tranche III.

9. Qatar AF: 20 Tranche III.

The UAE can sell M2K without permission, but in any case don’t need to sell them to buy a new fighter.

They started looking seriously at F-15, F/A-18E/F and Typhoon in 2010, putting Dassault on notice that it was no longer a one horse race.

They issued RFPs/RFQs to Boeing and BAE Systems late in 2010.

They publicly rejected the French Rafale bid as being uncompetitive and unworkable in November 2011.

Renewed negotiations with the French side were subsequently abandoned.

So as things are Rafale is in longer in contention.

I remember UAE issuing RFPs/RFQs to Boeing and BAE Systems. Was that really 2 years ago? I presume Boeing and BAE Systems responded long ago. What has actually happened since then?

There’s no disagreement in principle, AFAIK. The Saudis accept they have to pay BAe more, both for the assembly in the UK & the support work which BAe will have to do, instead of being done in the non-existent new factory by the inactive local firm. They’re negotiating over how much.

I suspect that things were done in a less than business-like manner by the customer, putting BaE in a very difficult position.

I seem to remember that the Saudis had agreed & made an extra payment to cover some of the assembly cost.

At least the customer has started to make amends. 🙂

and the extended Saudi deal is nearly there but not quite….

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bae-saudi-typhoon-talks-stuck-on-price-380411/

“The so-called Salam deal, contracted in 2007, has so far delivered 24 aircraft. BAE today said that further aircraft are being built at its facility in Warton in the UK for delivery in 2013, and that outstanding issues relate to price rather than timing. The original contract prices were based on 2005 economic conditions, but a re-pricing of the 12-year contract for aircraft, support, maintenance, upgrades and training has been under discussion for two years.”

I think some of the price problem is due to Saudi Arabia being supposed to assemble aircraft after the initial 24 were assembled by BaE. I wonder how far that idea went before it was abandoned.