My dear friend, the wars are eventually fought because political decisions. So if you get a look how GB and US are well suited toghever when we consider the military and political alliance and choices, don’t be surprised if in a eventually war between US and EU ,GB could not take part for the “continentals”. I wouldn’t be surprised if they couls insthead give theyr bases for the US forces. It was happened in almost seriuos crissi from WWII to today. so it could be silly if one don’t think to this eventuality.

first, it must be considered if the RN is a part of the European navies like geography could suggest, or is a part of the US Navy like the political seeems suggest.

Apart this, the Europeans have also NUKES .-not me-on hteir SSBN and the US cannot trheat EU without been awarded by a helluva of nukes.
third, depends when the battle is fought. Near the EU coast, as example, ther must been the not exactly dispreceabile effort of the marineflieger wit htornado IDS and other aircrafts. Not only, if we see the overall possibilites also the EU airforces should been involved. In a open ocean this could be only a suicide for europeans and so this will never happen

While Reagan was quite a nice traitor in the movie itself, his off-screen reward given to him by Smith definately qualifies him as the most evil character of all 😀

Mmh.. i haven’t understood well this

he, if the KH 55 are in the hands of Iranians, i think that Israel could became very hungry…

right Tony, i think that in the strafing role, however, the NR 30 has a edge in piercing power while i am not sure that the NR 30 were better than the 4 M 39 in the Air-air, perhaps vs bombers.

Sens, perhaps that the third world countries that had bough the Migs or Sukhoy have done it for have influence. The same could be said, however, also for the countries that had got one or two squadron of Mirages or even F 16s. the problem is that hardly one country like Zambia could buy a mach 2 fighter of western production, and there is not evidence that as life cycle these latter have a cheaper price, perhaps less manutention hours but not necessarly less expense. The only datas i know seems indicate that a Mig 29 costs for flight hour not more than a Tornado (arund 15,000 $ vs 16-18,000), and a Mig 21 less than a F-104.
I repeat, with the money for 50 A-5 how many coursair-jaguar or similar could be buyed? 5,6? Not even enough for a reduced squadron. the same, always for the PAF, about the J 6, the first 60 were even gratis. i don’t think that PAF at the time could maintain 200 F 5s , wheterever the F 5 could be most effective than the F 6 even once armed with Aim-9..

And not only this. we know that every thing new is rated as cost-effective, and somethimes even cheaper. the F22 was rated a bit costly than a f 15, the M 1 abrams was rated the double operative- costing than a M 60 while hte trhuth was that the costs raised to the 350%. So i am not wondered if there are actually still countries that modernizes their M 60s-T55-72s than buy the last gen. tanks. Here as well, something should mean

regs

Indeed. But even so, the fact that a Bae Hawk costs not so less away by a Su 30 MKI it’s a bit surprising or not?

In other words, my guess (and for the F 16 as well ) is either that or the Western types tends to be too costly, or the russian types are very less costly. If we look at the list of the users of the Fkankers i’d say that teh Eagle is not so cost-competitive. And the life costs of these beast should be really impressive, if not why even in EU nobody has buyed them? And why the Tornado was exported only in Saudis while the Fencer is exported in a lot of countries? Also, how hell Albania-Zambia third world countries could obtain mach 2 fighters if not buy Mig 21s in the 60s.?

Oh, Phantom, so you can understand what i write!

I would suggest you a thing, hovewer: if you start a trhead it’s better to be flexible about the development of the discussion. If you didn’t mean the costs of the two aircrafts it’s your problem, not our. The open discussions are much more richs than the iron-hand ruled ones. Nothing ridicoulos in a discussion except the flaming and the “no-fly zones”.

Sens , my dear friend, give a look to the data below:

around 1 year ago it was published an contract for the BAe Hawk, it was rated at 1,7 billions, for 24 purchased and 42 under license. this , if confirmed, means a cost of almost 30 millions for every hawk. this say nothing to you? An indian Hawk costs around almost a SU 30MKI. Perhaps it’s a joke, but if the things are so, it’s better to buy SU 27UB insthaed!

Another pearl:the F 16 for Oman, 12 fighters with several equipment, were in 2002 discussed at the Congress. Guess the price: 1,12 billions , a media of -modic- 91(91!) millions for every aircraft sold, around 2,2 times greater than the Su 30 that is a fighter two category higher.

Polony, it has bought 48 f 16s at the modest price of “only” 3,5 billions, around 70 millions for each falcon

Austria, it has bought 18 EF 2000 for 1,9 billions euro: over 100 for every aircraft, as overall cost of the program

EAU. bought 80 F 16 block 60 (a sort of Su 30MKI, in a certain sense) for 7 billions $

Cechia, bought or wanted to buy 24 gripen for “only” 1,5 billions euro.

Sadly, i haven’t found nothing about the Saudi or korean contract for the F 15s.

Overall, this datas above could be considered a “joke” but even so, something, if compared with the 35-50 millions for costumized version of the Flanker selled to china and India, should be said by these “jokes” rough numbers.