Reuters

PARIS, March 3 (Reuters) – The crisis in Ukraine has not so far reached the point that the French government is considering halting the sale of assault warships to Russia, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said on Monday.

Asked on RTL radio whether France would suspend the deal, Fabius said: “We aren’t there. For the moment we are trying to stop the Russian movement in Ukraine and maintain, or rather, establish dialogue.”

What other points of exposure are there for Russian military-industrial programs? I know Su-30SM has some western gear.

France warns Russia of ‘targeted measures’

The European Union will consider “targeted measures” against Russia if tensions do not start easing in Ukraine’s Crimea region, France’s foreign minister warned Moscow on Monday.

“If there is not in the coming hours a very quick de-escalation, then we will decide concrete measures such as the suspension of all talks on visas, suspension of economic agreements and concretely that means that ties will be cut on lot of subjects,” Laurent Fabius told BFM TV.

Could such measures affect the LHDs currently under construction in both Russia and France?

I’m surprised that such liberal mixing of the terms “F-35” and “real world” doesn’t cause the offending posts to self-annihilate.

Of course, the very large fuel capacity of the Sukhoi aircraft would suggest that internal fuel capacity is also important for DCA missions for nations with a large amount of airspace to patrol.

Flanker was designed around OCA, not DCA.

Poland is a 40 000 000 people nation. They can afford few F-35s easily; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland

Never said they couldn’t. I agree that the proposed buy is within Polish means if they want it.

If the PAF wants a fifth gen. fighter, the F-35 may be their only option. Gripen is great, but it is not a fifth gen. fighter.

The question is if the reference to ‘5th gen’ really means what we are interpreting it as, or if it is rather (a) just an off-the-cuff remark to which we are attributing far too much or (b) being used in the broader sense of either ‘a generation beyond our current F-16/52+’ or ‘a new-build aircraft offered in the 2020+ timeframe’.

After all, if by ‘5th gen’ they mean what we think they mean then, as you say, F-35 is probably their only option. So why not simply say ‘F-35’ instead? In any case, after reading the report into the F-16 acquisition linked earlier, I’m inclined to think that is what they mean and F-35 will probably be the type selected, but there’s no harm in speculating. 😉

On the contrary (SEE TABLE 5-2), LM offered some very serious tech maturation with the benefits of its vast experience of the subject in Eu.

And ff1987‘s post seems to suggest that Poland was in some way dissatisfied with what has actually eventuated. The most amazing offer in the world means nothing without execution.

And for those who want the real story… Here are the details for polish decision. Gripen was 2nd behind f-16, mirage 2000-5, 3rd. Polish turned down free Mig-29 from Germany so does not look like they thought too highly of them.Mack won’t see reply because he blocked me for commenting on one of his rants… Truth apparently too much for him.
http://www.marshallcenter.org/mcpublicweb/MCDocs/files/College/F_Publications/occPapers/occ-paper_11-en.pdf

That was a good read, thanks.

In affirming the importance of politics, it naturally raises the question of the post-selection experience. Is ff1987‘s claim that Poland was disappointed with offsets received substantiated? And what of the more recent character of Polish-US relations? The only datum I have to contribute is that there was great controversy in Poland when it was revealed the government cooperated in allowing CIA to run a torture centre there.

What about the Gripen is cheaper to operate than an F-16?

It is a smaller aircraft and of more modern design.

How so? I feel as if reducing the number in operation and the resulting flight hours might show a significant cost savings.

Significant perhaps, but not enough. There is a direct quote to that effect from a snr. USAF official that I can’t be bothered looking up.

EDIT: Not the quote I was thinking of, but close enough:

Janes

General Mark Welsh, the USAF chief of staff, said on 11 December that divesting from entire fleets of aircraft may be the only way to achieve the level of savings required, and the A-10 is a prime candidate.

“We looked at divesture of fleets of airplanes because it is one of the very few practical ways to get at dollar signs with a B [for billion] behind them [….]

The service would have to shut down three to four times as many F-16 squadrons to achieve the same level of savings, he said, and at that point the USAF would not be equipped to do its air superiority mission.