A note about ejection seats. As far as I know, these would not be under any UK embargo due to their life-saving purpose. It is an Argentinean embargo on their import that would prevent them being used.

This has already caused Argentina some problems. FAdeA’s Pampa III upgrade/new-build programme is using Russian seats whereas the current Pampas have Martin-Baker Mk 10s. FAdeA really didn’t want to have to re-engineer the aircraft to take the K-36 seats, but was forced to by government policy, at least for the Argentine aircraft. If an export customer wanted Mk 10s, FAdeA would be only too happy to fit them!

Hmmm. I’m very skeptical about this report. While JF-17 might be a good ‘fit’ for Argentina, I don’t think it will happen any time soon. I also had some time with the boss of FAdeA at Paris, and he was talking about a ‘Pulquí III’ as being a notional future fighter being developed as part of the pan-South American UNASUR programme. Walking before running is the watchword as far as I could gather – let’s see if they can get a basic trainer (IA-73) to partner Pampa up and running first as UNASUR I (due to fly late next year – currently selecting powerplant).

I should also say that FAdeA are very clearly unhappy (although they will not come out and say it) at being forced to switch ejection seats for Pampa – obviously a major engineering change that they could do without. The M-B Mk 10 is still available for Pampa if an export customer wants it. FAdeA have teamed with Grob to offer a G 120TP/Pampa III training system for export.

I also got the distinct feeling that the 18 ‘new’ IA-63 Pampa IIIs will actually be the current 18 Pampa IIs rebuilt with Elbit avionics, and that the 22 IA-63GT foillow-on ground attack aircraft will be the first genuine new-build aircraft. Now I admit that is not what was being officially said, just my impression based on the fact that six or so new Pampa IIs were built as recently as 2004/5. Replacing them with new-build aircraft after only 10 years seemed strange to me.

Interesting round-up.
One very minor correction, though. The passive AMRAAM-launch capaility was known about some time before the Viggen was retired in 2005. The capability most likely became reality around 2001 with software edition ‘O’, although a passive radar mode was first introduced in the previous edition (‘N’) in 1999.

Over Libya Rafale used: SCALP, AASM/Hammer in GPS/IMU and GPS/IMU/IR versions (laser version now in final stages of clearance), GBU-12, Reco NG pod, plus MICA EM/IR.

Note that Typhoon a/a weapons included ASRAAM (RAF) and IRIS-T (Italy)

AFSOC has PC-12, CASA 212, Mi-8/17, An-32

Then there’s the Mi-25, Ka-32 and Mi-14 used by the Army TRADOC/OPFOR guys – not sure if they are still going?

Under the heading of ‘might have been’ don’t forget the Handley Page C-10 Jetstream;)

XF8U-3 is my personal favourite – apparently was pretty good too. Just a shame it lost out to some offering from McDonnell – I forget exactly which;)

For some reason I always liked the Baroudeur. Nice little aircraft – took off from a trolley and landed on a skid. Who needs airfields?

Yup – a 1312 mail run from MPA.

The lack of seriousness with which some here talk about using nuclear weapons, leaves me dumbfounded.

A ridiculous question (no offence) often deserves a ridiculous answer. (but I agree with the rest of your post and I think you are perhaps taking it too seriously)

Anyway, the UK pays enough for Trident so why not put it to some use? (and, yes, I am joking again)

Perhaps if the UK strat nuke capability had been allowed to lapse some years ago when it had lost any validity then the UK could have afforded a couple of new carriers and a couple of squadrons of Rafales as well, rendering this thread even more pointless than it already is.