I understand that, but to revist Crusades and its payback, is not perticularly pleasant.

Now carrying around that baggage, as your post suggest is, shall I say foolhardy. And any weapons procurement on those historical basis is bound to bring misery only.

As I said, your technical contribution is highly appreciated, please continue on the same lines.

Thank You.

I wouldn’t have revisited them, if Cola hadn’t tried to bring them up. What am i supposed to reply to someone who says ” I’m from an “Antemuralis Christianitatis” state. And so, after almost 7 centuries of fight…” ? Why do you think he said that? Because he wanted to tell me something. Of course i could have played “moron” and replied “Friend, i don’t know what you are talking about, you don’t make sense, i think you ‘re drunk”.

That has nothing to so with a basis for arms purchases. Read what Cola said and what i replied more carefully. It’s not related with procurement in the basis of what’s the Croats nickname was back then. And AFAIK the Ottomans weren’t out for oil.

In my reply to Nicolas and Sens, i only got back to 1973, which is the start of the current situation and of why you see an arms race . At least conceed me that i didn’t bring up first the siege of Vienna, nor did i correlate the arms race to that.

Halo Aspis,

I’m from an “Antemuralis Christianitatis” state. And so, after almost 7 centuries of fight for our bare lifes, agianst Turkish Empire, sometimes, I’m not sure whether we should really fight Turks, or just bild them a highway to Wienna and the rest of the Europe…
…hang in there…

Cola

Hello my Croat friend. Today the way to Vienna, is done by laying pipelines. It’s the “Nabucco highway”.

Look, our politicians have been trying the “highway” way too. In fact, we have been honoured a couple of days ago, where the Turkish PM Erdogan, has said pubblically in Turkey, that the stance that Greece has shown to the Turkish candidacy in the EU, is a positive one to this day. While he wasn’t so happy about Cyprus.

So, we have extended the hand of friendship since 1999. We have offered the hand of a judge since 1978. What else are we supposed to do? Evacuate the islands from our “settlers” the fall back to mainland Greece? Yes, that would surely bring peace! Unless of course some new oil reserves were to be suspected that exist in the gulf of Athens. Now that would be a new disputed area, because no treaty says “The islands of the gulf of Athens are greek”.

One thing is to be willing to find a solution. Another thing is to be asked to surrender.

Back then, you didn’t surrender. You had been called the “last shield of christianity”. You eventually capitulated. But would have been better if you just bowed down your heads without a fight? Yes, you were killed and lost. At least, look, you still exist as nation. Your will of surrender would have brought you to become one with the Turks. So what your ancestors did, kept you alive. And history, has an irony of punishing the potent. And Croatia as you see is back on the map. There is nobody that remains forever powerful.

An interesting poll:

The largest (in number of vessels) sea invasion fleet in the Meditteranean is:

– Turkish, at Izmir harbour.
– Italian.
– French.
– Spanish.

Correct answer: 1.

Turkey has a new plan for an LPD , if price permits it, capable for some helicopter transporting too. Most possibly, this is because she must:

– Strengthen her invasion fleet against Iran.
– Strengthen her invasion fleet against Syria.
– Strengthen her invasion fleet against Greece.

I vote for no.3

Then all you have to do , is study the turkish purchases. Ours, is openly admitted, are made with Turkey in mind. The turkish ones though, also oddly enough, seem to be replies to greek ones or according to turkish plans (as the LPD). Isn’t that odd for someone that sees Iran as the no1 threat?

Isn’t it odd that 100.000 turkish troops are in the Aegean coast and 100.000 in Thrace with the best equipment Turkey has? Why aren’t towards Iran and Irak? According to a turkish fairy tale, which i don’t know if it’s still “sold” to the pubblic opinion, to prevent the secret greek plan , according to which, Greece will use the islands to make the surprise landing on turkish coast. :rolleyes: I hope they now have a more convincing theory.

Or, you can go to a turkish military forum and see what they discuss more between them. 🙂 The turkish language is very hard to google translate because of the… unconventional syntax. But you will understand many things, that you won’t see written in english here…

Does nobody see the sad irony of the situation?

Turkey buys 100 F35
Greece buys 100 F35

end result… but countries are 200 F35 poorer, and the situation is just the same as if they each had 100 spad XIII

Why not spend the money on booze instead?

Nic

Nicolas, i will try to make it more clear to you. In our case, no news, is good news. How can i say it. We do not wish to change the status quo in the area, someone else is. So as long as we are 100 F35 poorer, but with the borders as they are, this means “mission accomplished”. Other than that and be open to a juridical solution, you can’t do more. Your question is like if you said “France was spending $ in the cold war, the Russians were spending money in the cold war, what was the use of it for France?”. According to you, was it more probable that the Russians wanted to march up to Paris, or you think that your goverment wanted to march to Moscow?

Or to put it in the more “dumb-proof” way… You want to do just live in your house. There is someone, who would like to come into your house and steal it. Both of you, spend money. You to prevent that, the other to accomplish that? Is it good enough for you, if you find your stuff inside your home or was it wasted money?

“Why not spend it in booze?” I will tell you the difference. Because then, you become “Cyprus”. And this means, that for every turkish move, you must conceed more and more. Turkey didn’t want S-300 on Cyprus, threatened to strike them. Cyprus had to back off. Why? Because exactly Cyprus isn’t in the position to seriously make the Turks have second thoughts about it. So they came to Crete. Why didn’t the Turks say the same to Greece? Because there is a difference of what they can achieve with Greece compared with Cyprus. And so on.

The geopolitical intrests of Turkey are not limited to the Aegean Sea.
An important oil area is the Caspian Sea and the new republics east of Turkey.The former frontline Greece is just a geopolitical backyard now.

You know the problem? Geopolitical interests of Turkey in the turcophone Caucasian repubblics has to do with influencing politically and is a policy that goes against Russia. The “Panturkism” theory, had been at heart for some politicians of Turkey since the 80s and tried to give fruits. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, turkish hopes went up high again. But the “bear” is still strong enough and Turkey has seen too little tangible results.

However, the turkish policy in Caucasus and Caspian oil routes, does not require 100 F35 for them. Unless they intend to bomb Russia…

The attrition between Greece and Turkey in the Aegean, commenced right after the turkish invasion in Cyprus. This, because in 1973, the Americans had started oil research in the Aegean and did find something. So did we later. As a result, to this day, and since us and Turkey recognize different versions of the Law of the Sea (we the newer one, the Turks the older one), the continental shelf delimitation has not been done. And the reason that has not been done, is because there is oil. Oddly enough, this isn’t some oil in Caucasus, but right within Turkey’s grasp. So Turkey, doesn’t want some tiny small islet just because she can expand her waters, but also because, by expanding her waters more, in a court, she will get a bigger piece of the continental shelf. You know what is one of the basilary differences between the old and newer Law of the Sea? That the newer (apart the 12 nm sea), clearly says, that islands do have the right to continental shelf too.

http://www.athensnews.gr/athweb/nathens.prnt_article?e=C&f=13052&t=03&m=A33&aa=1

Do you now understand, why before 1974 there was no “cold war” with Turkey?

The above is a small oil quantity, inside greek waters. If it was outside , we couldn’t take it, because there is no official delimitation of the continental shelf yet. And as various maps that have appeared in the past show, the bigger oil reserves, are in the eastern Aegean. So Turkey, discovers “disputed islands”, in an attempt to extend her territorial waters towards the middle of the Aegean and thus, hope for a larger pie of the oil.

Now, in my book, the 100 F35s, are actually much more useful towards Greece, than hoping to cut the Russian influence on Baku… This would probably be coherent with the fact, that the best equipment of the turkish army, is on Thrace and the aegean coast. Towards Iran, there are M48/60. Same goes for the displacement of the TuAF bases, ports.

The new US administration did it show to the world. Cyprus is happy with its situation and no longer in need of military support of Greece, which did not came in 1974 at all.

Yes, the new administration of USA will tell us what Turkey thinks… :rolleyes: Cyprus is happy with its situation… Well, once more i will try to propose another point of view. 🙂

Cyprus is making a “virtue” out of a necessity. Cyprus would have been “happy”, if there was a solution according to the UN resolutions of 1974-1995. After 1996, that Turkey must enter EU, the UN position has shifted in a much more pro-turkish way. The “compromise” has become much more “bitter” for the Cypriots. The UN resolutions of before are very different with the new ones. She would also have been “happy”, if Turkey, had been forced to apply the customs union with EU, signed a few years ago, with Cyprus too. Currently, Turkey have customs union with every EU member, bar Cyprus. And Cyprus all that can do, is freeze 8 turkish negotiations chapters. Turkey has been vetoing the entrance of Cyprus in about 6 EU or international organizations that Turkey had got into before Cyprus. And all Cyprus can do is nothing.

A military solution was never an option or a remote possibility for Cyprus. That’s how the S-300 ended up in Greece, before ever touching Cypriot soil. You think that Cyprus before entering the EU was counting on “greek aid” that would come and save Cyprus? Have you ever seen how many nautical miles Cyprus is away from Crete and even worse from mainland Greece? And how much the distance is from Turkey and turkish airforce bases? Cyprus never really believed that Greece would be able to efficiently send enough support to “save” her. Do you know why Cyprus in the 90s finally decided to build a military airfield? Because before the coming of the Block52+, the loiter time of a greek aircraft, that could go over Cyprus, carry a minimal bomb load and a minimal self protection A-A payload, was ridiculously low. It was more likely that our aircrafts, if not shot down in the meantime, they would fall into the sea, because of “bingo fuel”. In 1974, when our CIA-bred junta chief basically sold Cyprus, theoretically speaking, the option of the few newly received Phantoms that was examined, was to send them over Cyprus ONCE, with full extra fuel tanks load and the few bombs that could take and fly straight on and land on Lebanon. This, because the chances that the only Cypriot airfield in Nicosia, would remain available under the constant bombing of Tuaf, were minimal. At the end, the F4Es remained in Crete, since it was judged that the help offered would be without meaning and we would lose the aircrafts at least for the duration of the conflict(once in Lebanon it would become a diplomatic issue taking them back).

Same goes for the Cypriots building a rudimentary naval base. So that some greek ship, or submarine more likely, if needed, could go to a Cypriot port for refuelling.

This is also the reason, that when Greece in 1993 decided to do something to prevent further “expansion” of the Turks in Cyprus, Greece didn’t come out and simply tell to Cyprus “we guarantee, that in the case of new conflict, we will send you aircrafts, tanks, ships, troops and your battleground will become ours”. No. What Greece said, in the “annoucement of the common defence dogma” was “If Turkey further tries to expand, Greece will attack Turkey”. Which is very different in the substance. It doesn’t mean, that hald of HAF will fly from mainland Greece to Crete and then from Crete to the only military airfield in Cyprus and that half of greek navy will depart for the only naval base in Cyprus. It can mean that HAF will start bombing turkish targets in the turkish coast. Which was an indirect deterrence.

Greece was never in the position to send to Cyprus anything more than a “symbolic” reinforcement and since the arrival of the B52+, to send some sorties over Cyprus. The Cypriot goverment knew that and so they tried to buy some equipment, in order to stall the Turks enough.

Since then, the “common defence dogma” has faded out, because we achieved the political goal to put Cyprus in EU and from there, work in order to get a solution. Politics imposed to Cyprus to cancel the annual drill with Greece (HAF aircrafts and a few ships were trainning with the Cypriot national guard). So yes, not having other alternatives, the Cypriots are “happy” with the situation. What can they do to be happier? See the full withdrawal of turkish troops and the extension of the goverment in all the island as was supposed to be according to the UN resolutions before the “federation of 2 states” thing pop up. Yes. But it won’t happen. So they are “happy”.

I have a relative in Cyprus Sens, she tells me how happy they are. 😀 They have simply understood that they can’t do anything about it, other than hoping that from within the EU they will achieve something, as long as Turkey remains still interested in entering the EU. If Turkey, stops being interested, the Cypriot policy goes back to square 1. Have you heard of ever arriving close to a plan for Cyprus before the 2004 Annan plan? No. Do you know why? Because Turkey was replying “There is nothing to be solved, it’s all solved in 1974”. Or the “first, you recognize the turkish state of Cyprus as sovereign and legitimate state. Then we talk”. Of course, if you recognize that, why would the Turks then want to solution that includes unification? :confused: Cyprus is of strategic importance to Turkey. They see it strategically, in a similar manner to how USA was seeing Cuba.

Imagine if the Gaza strip, was to enter the EU as “Palestinian State”. They wouldn’t be happy with it. But what else could they hope for? A new arab coalition attacking Israel? The EU attacking Israel? No, they would simply try to use EU in order to press Israel for a solution according to the UN resolutions and in the meantime, count on an Israeli will to join the EU to ensure their safety. Yes, that would be happy. Because you can’t expect anything better…

Just like the inhabitants of Agathonisi, are happy. Because they are still in their houses… They know that the attrition with Turkey has been going on for 40 years and that can’t change overnight. So, what’s better than being able to live in the same house in the meantime when you know that the other would very much like to kick you out of there and raise turkish flag?

Turkey wants more “space to breath” (the eastern Aegean), not just because it gives her bigger geopolitical importance to control half Aegean, but also for economical reasons. And you can’t get out and say that clearly in politics. Even in antiquity, the Acheans said that they were fighting for 10 years, because that Trojan fellow had seduced the stolen the wife of their buddy Menelaus. So, being good friends, they were getting slaughtered so that their buddy could get his wife back.

So, Turkey, doesn’t want the eastern Aegean. No. Simply in 1974 she declared that eastern half of Athens FIR was turkish and all aircrafts had to contact Istanbul FIR. She only revoked that in 1981, because Greece replied with NOTAM declaring the airspace dangerous to flights and Turks saw their tourism taking a hit.

So, what else can an Achean do to save the wife of his buddy? Ok, this is a classic.

– Declare the eastern Aegean Search and Rescue Region as turkish. By coincidence, the limits are the same in the 1974 NOTAM:

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/1759/turkishsararea1.jpg

What is the region that the international Maritime organization recognizes? If you have google earth, go on:

http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_id%3D9046/1.pdf

The IMO recognizes as greek SAR region, the area that ICAO also has it, which is the Athens FIR limits.

Basically do you see this map with the “borders around Greece”? It’s the same for ICAO and IMO as greek SAR zone.

http://www.ecacnav.com/RVSM

Not according to the Turks though.

– What are the limits that Turkey wants for her continental shelf? By satanic coincidence, they are the same as above (isn’t it… strange!!!)

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/3923/turkishdemands1s.jpg

– Apart the fact that controlling half the Aegean , would give more sea access to Turkey, a bigger role for her navy, combined with the control of Dardanelles and so in total an upgrade of her status, is there any logic behind these limits?

This is a map of the Greek Navy Hydrographic Service, which shows the areas that according to the turkish TPAO (the energy research organization),may contain pockets of oil (black) or gas (///):

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/8139/turkishdemands2.jpg

Also, do you know the concept of when you find a piece of land that isn’t yours, but gradually you can make it yours…legally? How is that done? You start planting trees in it, you start cultivating it, you get money from it, you build a house, you put a sign with your name on it. After 20 years, if the legal proprietary hasn’t disputed you, you can go to a Court and it legalizes your claims on that land because of the “right of use”. This principle, in a broader sense, is tried to be applied from Turkey:

– If i fly wherever i want in the eastern Aegean, if i dispute land in eastern Aegean, if i do SAR in eastern Aegean, if i have my continental shelf in the eastern Aegean, at the end, if i DO militarily occupy the eastern Aegean, it won’t shock so much the international community. I mean, look at the maps with turkish claims. Suppose that Turkey would get her FIR limits, continental shelf limits, SAR region limits up to the line she wants, wouldn’t it look logical to you to also have the islands inside those limits??? To me it sounds perfectly logical!

A solution would be the Hague. As i have already posted elsewhere, we tried to drag them there in 1978, exactly for the continental shelf, but they managed to evade. In 1978, the 1982 Law of the Sea, wasn’t out. So actually Turkey would have had bigger gains. So her position is now worse than that of 1978 in a court. Now, imagine. The 1978 legislation, wasn’t good enough for her, so she evaded the Court. Imagine how willing she is to get judged by the 1982 legislation…

So, what can Turkey do? Dispute everything, try to scare Greece into giving away everything she wants (remember what Cyprus did with S300 deployment again? That’s the principle). Or find an opportunity, do a limited crisis and drag Greece to the negotiations table, where Greece, with losses already, will have to make concessions to Turkey, which no Court would ever grant her.

So, Nicolas, can you now understand what our $ we give has served for? The alternative would be this to put it in a more humour way (I am sorry i don’t remember the Greek who photoshoped it so to give credit and i have edited some more offensive things):

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/3567/zama.jpg

Of course, in the EU progress reports for Turkey, every time, there is a mention about Turkey that must commit herself to good neighbouring relations, Hague etc.

It also says that Turkey must actually do customs Union with Cyprus.

Pages 28,29.

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/press_corner/key-documents/reports_nov_2008/turkey_progress_report_en.pdf

Until though somehow Turkey is actually seriously pressed to do something to comply, we have to give $, instead of being like Cyprus and watch the Turks roaming wherever they like and say that we bring “settlers” on our islands.

I hope our European partners, rhetorics apart, instead of thinking that they are geniouses and have found the solution that Greece hasn’t thought of, would just pressure Turkey to do what they have themselves signed in that report. Instead, “don’t pressure Turkey, for Nabucco’s / my industry’s/ my pipeline’s sake”.

This is to say, Cyprus, that doesn’t waste anymore her $, is hoping in EU and UN to find a solution and do the customs union. And she can’t even install whatever weapon she paid for, because she has limited sovereignty.

At least, we don’t have to beg EU to permit Agathonisi islanders to go to their homes or to beg the Turks to let us do SAR in the eastern Aegean or that we have rights there. Maybe one day we will have to. But we are not there yet.

Regards

Aspis, I don’t think we really disagree, it’s just a matter of view.
I think you gave quite a good description of the alternatives. A big company from a super power has big resources, while a small company from a small country is probably more interested in listening to your demands.

Yes. I don’t disagree at all. As a matter of fact, i am not trying to be a fan of one or the other aircraft. You know better than me your airforce’s needs. I simply tried to give an outsider’s look , based on what we know from different vendors and how a competition is made (not sure how yours is, but most likely there is a similar “bearaucratic” part too).

The political part of the issue, which includes the fear of political trouble with the vendor, is something that your goverment will mostly examine.

That the missiles were available does not mean that it didnt require American authorisation. But I dont claim to know exactly how the storage regulations work for every weapon and every country, I have just heard complaints of that situation. And it could be an explanation for the statement discussed earlier.

Well, i only told what i know. More than this… If they are stored anywhere inside India, you think that there is any force that will stop you from taking them? You will get in with the tanks if necessary and to hell with the authorization. You will have your soldiers risking their lives waiting for the Americans to give authorization?

Of course you can find solutions for the EW threat libraries in situations there two sides both use American aircraft. You still need American active help to do it and they can decide to not help if they want to. Wether they will is another matter and I cant claim to know that they wont. But it could also explain the statement.

Of course, if the Americans don’t want… It’s the same story with the missiles. If they don’t want, they can leave you without ammo too… One thing that you must do, is to put a clause in your contract, that you will be able to immediately add all present pakistani systems that you want in the threats libraries, etc. They deny? You deny the deliveries.

“What about future systems we will want to add?” you may ask. That’s part of the risk. If they go against you politically, they won’t help you in that or in ammo, etc.

Perfect example , that was how we were affected by post Pokhran-2 sanctions , when US refused to give our own FWB system that was being tested there on F-16 VISTA for LCA and delayed it , not to mention sanction were applied on all Defence Labs , Space Research Centers , Industry and Academy who were suspected to be involved with N program some of Hi Tech sanction still do exist

Incase if there is disagreement , the usual tactics is to delay it to the extent its as good as deny it

Well, i see you are no novices to this then. You know the drill…

In case of French and Russia such restriction or Political restrictions dont exist.

Yes. The story goes like this. The bigger the power of the vendor, the more the likelyhood that they will create problems. Because the chances that their policy changes and from friend you suddently become an “annoyance”, are much higher. What possible french interests for example, could you possibly step onto in India? There are none! So they won’t put you restrictions.

No one can deny using such equipment as long as the equipment is in a healthy state and can perform , but once the squeeze starts you might have to restrict your operation to save on the hours of service to avoid issues with equipment.

Which means even with the denial of spares during peace time it can affect operations , like it happened with Sea King post POK2

Even with TOT you will have to depend on the OEM for support , TOT does not automatically translate to we can make each and every stuff in local industry , its simply not feasible.

And TOT itself is time consuming process spread over decades depending on what is feasible and economical to produce locally and what needs to be imported.

Well then, this is something your goverment must evaluate.

It could be a matter of context, some words are missing, like this; Under the agreement, India would have to certify that the US military hardware it purchases would not be used in combat (in an effective way unless the US government approves it)

For example that some vital weapons, such as AMRAAM are kept in special storage and are only released after decision by US authorities. Or that EW threat libraries can only be updated by the Americans and future sales/integration of updated weapons need approval.

Yes, something like that makes more sense. But as i said, in the case where (i hope not) you were to go into a crisis with Pakistan, a piece of paper won’t stop you from loading all the missiles you have. Unless the Americans have put a “self-destruction” radio signal receiver inside the missile… :p

Aspis, the IAF has been a Dassault customer since the 1950s ! they bought the Dassault Ouragans, then Mysteres as well. then the USSR stepped in to become the biggest supplier and the cheaper and capable MiG-21s won out against Mirage 3/5s and the Mirage F1 lost out to the Jaguar, but the Mirage-2000 was procured to counter the F-16s of the PAF.

but the price factor has really taken away the export quotient of Dassault’s sales. the fact that the Rafale needed to be able to replace so many different types of aircraft in French service, and be a naval fighter meant that it had to be twin-engined, and in a weight class higher than the Mirage-2000. consequently, costs go up and very few countries can afford to buy twin-engined fighters in sizeable numbers. most will be happy with a Gripen/F-16 class fighter because they’re cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate as well.

I agree with everything. So, you are an even earlier customer and they managed to let you down too… In commerce, you can follow 2 ways:

– Be happy with lower profit, but more clients. Maybe you won’t get as much money as you would like, but you will earn “regular customers”, who , in the long run, will give you more profit.

– Or, take advantage of your customer, squeeze him to the last drop and make as much profit as you can while he depends on you. Unfortunately, time comes, when the goods you sold to a customer is now old and about to be retired, so the customer doesn’t NEED to continue to depend from you. And then most likely, you will lose the customer. I am afraid this is the policy that Dassault followed.

The US Congress can also impose clause that the president certify every year that x y z conditions are met and it cannot certify it then sanctions are automatically applied.

Much like what happend with Presseler Ammendment against Pakistan.

There is something that i don’t understand/know in the Indian situation. What’s so important about Pakistan for USA? :confused: Why are you so afraid of USA in relation to Pakistan?